The Speaker won’t tolerate patheticness:

In the latest episode of Capitol punishment, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass tossed Assemblywoman Nicole Parra from her office on Monday morning after the Central Valley Democrat failed to vote for the budget on Sunday.

In a twist, Parra hasn’t been reassigned to more cramped quarters in the Capitol itself – but booted straight across the street to the Legislative Office Building. She will be the only member of the Legislature whose office is not housed in the Capitol.

Love it! But don’t worry, Parra is acting quite mature in her budget negotiations:

“Is it worth it? Yes,” Parra said.

“If there’s no future for water, then let’s pave over the Central Valley and let’s import all our food,” she added.

I think Bass should start running local ads that Parra told the Sacramento Bee she wanted to pave over the Central Valley. What suggests do you have on how Karen Bass can stop the wankers from splintering the caucus?

After the most worthless two hours and twelve minutes of public comment, the San Francisco Democratic Party finally started voting as all the members had made up their minds to vote before the meeting started. There were plenty of other bloggers on hand to talk about all the sex workers and wannabe soldiers and weirdos who wasted so much time, so read them.  

Anyway, it is now the official position of the Democratic Party to support the San Francisco Clean Energy Act to switch to clean, renewable energy. Lots of applause. Democrats support clean energy!

From the San Francisco Clean Energy Act website:

CLEAN ENERGY

The Clean Energy Act will ensure that San Francisco will build enough solar, wind power, and conservation projects to give the City 100% clean energy within just three decades. It will make San Francisco a worldwide leader in the fight against global warming and catastrophic climate change. The greatest source of green house gasses on the planet is carbon emissions from our energy supply. The time to go clean is now.

CLIMATE CRISIS

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act is a strong response to global warming. Already the writing is on the wall: melting polar ice caps, record temperatures, extreme weather patterns. We are on an unsustainable collision course with nature that could lead to our ultimate destruction unless our generation acts quickly and decisively to change the course of history.

GREEN ECONOMY

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act will make San Francisco the hub of the new green economy and generate thousands of jobs in the emerging clean energy industry. It requires a Green Jobs workforce development plan to train and employ workers building the City’s renewable energy infrastructure. Now is the time to usher in the Green Economy in San Francisco.

George Skelton recycled 20th century conventional wisdom when it came to Dianne Feinstein running for governor, which wasn’t surprising for a wannabe David Broder who can’t see that Broder’s relevance was written about in an online obituary years ago. You see, the days of top down politics have passed. The days of decree from above by those deemed worthy are no more. Dianne Feinstein didn’t get the memo:

The issue has been complicated since Feinstein joined with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in promoting the $9.3 billion bond, backed largely by Republicans.

[…]

“Six months ago, the governor asked if I’d sit down with political leaders in both parties and I did,” she added. “We left the meeting believing in two weeks they would come together on a bipartisan plan. They didn’t.”

Wahhhhh, wahhhh, wahhhh. DiFi tried to get some Democrats to support a proposal by the GOP Executive and Democrats didn’t ask how high they should jump? Welcome to California Senator, where legislative Democrats don’t sell out as easy as some of your senate buddies have done for Bush. You can’t just say what you want and then go back to Washington, DC to focus on selling out to George Bush. To get things done in California, you have to be involved beyond a photo-op and a few meetings. Yet the conventional wisdom hacks still write that she’d be a good Governor even though she thought in a day she could solve California’s water problem. What a joke on both counts.

It gets worse, either way this is actually the definition of hell:

“It’s not a, ‘hell, no’ right now, and it’s not a ‘hell, yes’ either,” she said of her reaction to speculation that’s she’s considering a 2010 bid to replace termed-out Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.”I’m a senator now, and my intention is to run for re-election.”

DiFi is older than McCain, a joke in the legislature, a crappy senator, a tool for the right, and will have her legacy actually examined by a post-broadcast media environment if she is dumb enough to ever enter another Democratic primary campaign. I say, “Hell, Yes!”

If you saw the Olympics last night, you might have seen the bold new ad by Al Gore’s “We” campaign:

Today, the “We” Campaign launched a new national television ad aimed at promoting the campaign’s challenge to repower America — by generating 100 percent of America’s electricity from truly clean sources within 10 years.

The ad, entitled “Switch,” (http://www.wecansolveit.org/switch) features Americans of all backgrounds — rural and urban, blue collar and white collar — making the change from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable forms of energy by symbolically “turning on” a giant, 25-foot light switch. Actor William H. Macy narrates the ad.

“America’s three great national challenges — our economy, national security and climate change — can all be addressed by switching to renewable energy,” said Cathy Zoi, CEO of the nonpartisan Alliance for Climate Protection, which is managing the “We” Campaign. “The Olympics are a time for all Americans to reflect on our nation’s achievements and what we as a people can do together. Choosing the right path and repowering our nation is something we can do, and something that will benefit us all.”

Just as “change” is the key word in this election and mistaking the mood of the electorate helped cost Hillary Clinton and her supporters the nomination, the key word for the next cycle is likely to be “switch” and misjudging the electorate will have the same results.

First, watch the ad and join the 1.5 million who have signed on to the campaign:

In the ad narrator Macy notes, “We all know our country faces tough challenges: a weaker economy, soaring gas prices, growing dependence on foreign oil and a worsening climate crisis.” He continues, “We can switch to smarter, cleaner forms of power and take advantage of free energy sources like the wind and sun….The answer is simple: power our country with 100 percent clean electricity within ten years.”

“Together, we can repower America,” the ad concludes. “Together, we can solve the climate crisis.”

That message — Al Gore’s message — is clearly resonating with voters of all persuasions, but especially Democratic Party primary voters and donors. Which is why it makes no sense for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to oppose the SF Clean Energy Act to switch the city to 100% clean energy.

This is the challenge of our time and history will record those who side with polluters like PG&E against the movement to switch that is growing every day. By the time the Democratic primary heats up, this vote will be as poison as the Iraq War vote (it is no coincidence that the polluters are using the same right-wing tactics the neocons used in their push against the reality-based community).

Yet it is not too late. Every day more and more people are realizing that the time to make the switch is now, the time for bold action is now. Hopefully, Gavin Newsom will have the wisdom to realize the how silly it sounds when he regurgitates PG&E’s talking points and will stop and think about what it is Al Gore is saying.

If he needs help, I recommend that his Climate Czar suggest he stop repeating PG&E’s misinformation and check out www.WeCanSolveIt.org, because we can. And we will. And we are paying attention to whom ‘we’ includes.

Lots of early positioning in the last week, especially the news from Senator Dianne Feinstein that she would make a decision as to running in the new year (translation: don’t write checks to other candidates during the reporting period that ends…at the end of the year).

On a conference call with bloggers, Lt. Governor John Garamendi noted that he’d be announcing a campaign manager in a bit, but couldn’t say the name now. Let the speculation begin.

Carla Marinucci looked at who will land Ace Smith, who has a stellar reputation. Carla was tipped about Smith joining a Jerry Brown for Governor facebook group (currently standing at 63 members), but I think we all need to remember joining a facebook group is not an endorsement, as Smith pointed out. Of course, the story looked at how Smith has recently worked for both Attorney General Jerry Brown and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. It should be noted, neither have a facebook page of their own…

More discussion on Gavin Newsom getting busted with Garry South. Randy Shaw said, “for all of his unpopularity with bloggers, the traditional media, progressives and politicians, Garry South was likely the most experienced and competent campaign manager available.” Tim Redmond brushed it off because, “anyone who thinks Newsom will run for governor as a San Francisco progressive hasn’t been paying attention to the mayor’s history and career. He ran for mayor the first time as a pro-business moderate, and that’s how he’ll run for governor.”

In Brian’s Open Letter on Garry South, he wrote:

As the presidential campaigns staff up in California and across the nation, I implore them, for their own sake, to stay away from Mr. South.  This state is sick of his apparent disdain for the base of the Democratic party.  Furthermore, his triangulation for every candidate that he has managed has ultimately led to an erosion of the Democratic brand.  If you care to read George Lakoff’s books, you will see that South violates pretty much every suggestion provided by the progressive movement’s greatest linguist.

I do not intend to make idle threats, but there is no surer way to writing off the support of the netroots in California than hiring Garry South. In fact, Mr. South has received votes of no-confidence from national blogs as well.

Which, South proved on Newsom’s signature issue, when he actually went to the right of Al From (Newsom is a long-time DLC member):

Al From, who heads the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, which highlighted Newsom among two dozen rising stars last month at its conference in Aspen, believes that Newsom “may have gotten a little bit ahead of himself with gay marriage — but the country as a whole will catch up.”

From said the bigger issue is that Newsom is “not afraid of change. That can only bode well for someone who has a good future in politics.”

Not all Democrats are so unfailingly positive about Newsom’s political future. Veteran Democratic consultant Garry South said Newsom is “a very attractive, very intelligent new political figure on the California scene,” and one who has shown gutsy moves in areas like tackling the homeless problem and improving the city’s business environment.

Still, South warned that same-sex marriage illustrated “the danger he faces is believing that San Francisco politics is just a smaller version of California statewide politics.”

In clearing the way for marriages previously rejected by California’s voters, South said Newsom embarked on “an unfortunate and somewhat self- indulgent move … that had some effect on the presidential campaign.”

“I can’t say that John Kerry would have won (without the issue),” South said, “but it was certainly not helpful to have our Democratic ticket having to campaign in states like Ohio which had a gay marriage thing on the ballot.”

Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona agreed that Newsom’s moves on same-sex marriage “absolutely” aided the Republican effort to re- elect Bush in 2004. emphasis added

What are you hearing about the early positioning?

Score another win for the internet exposing the ugly underbelly of transactional politics at it’s worst. A SoCal Blogger started rolling his camera when Gavin Newsom parked his SUV in a fire lane for a meeting at Starbucks. It didn’t take long for Carla Marinucci to notice the person he was meeting with, DLC Strategist Garry South.

Who is Garry South? Joe Lieberman announced he was running for president on Janunary 13, 2003. A January 16-20, 2003 ABC News/Washington Post Poll had Lieberman the clear front-runner, with more support than his next two closest competitors combined. Then Lieberman hired Gary South, started tanking, then started talking about Joementum just before calling his FIFTH place finish a three way tie for third. David Letterman said, “Because of poor results at the primaries last night, Senator Joe Lieberman will be dropping out of the race. Earlier today, he broke the news to his supporter.” Lieberman was subsequently kicked out of the Democratic Party.

Garry South elected Gray Davis with an impressive 58% and drove him so far south that he was kicked out by 55%. Jay Leno said, “Another hot day in California. It was so hot I actually saw a mirage. It was a Gray Davis supporter, I couldn’t believe it.” Steve Westly had all the money in the world, double digit lead two months out and ended up losing by 5 points thanks to Garry South. His DLC triangulation (Mayor Newsom is a long time DLC member) is so bad that many California bloggers signed on to an an open letter warning the presidential candidates about Garry South (must read, long but exposes exactly why this is the last person Newsom wants to get busted by bloggers with).

Interestingly enough, this is not even one of the better scandals the mayor has had online. This doesn’t come close to the sock-puppet-gate scandal that brought down his press secretary. Jennifer Siebel thought a good follow-up on that would be to go to SFist and make front page news. Then, just two weeks ago, Newsom thought a bloggers convention would be a good venue to come out against clean energy. The internet sure is going to be a fun place to watch the 2010 Democratic Primary play out.

Following up on gubernatorial trial balloons appearing in two Chronicle columns on Monday, Matier and Ross again take a look at speculation Senator Dianne Feinstein is running for Governor (it should be noted that this appears as an item following Gavin Newsom’s psychic advisor saying he’ll win and could even be president). The problem is, that DiFi would have a helluva tough time making it through a Democratic primary. Consider a few points after the jump and add ideas you have in the comments.

1. The Poll Numbers Aren’t Good

At this point in the cycle, the poll is mostly a reflection name recognition, yet still DiFi only has 50% in a two person race and I doubt any advisers to potential candidates are going to recommend folding shop with numbers that weak. I mean, she’s polling two points worse than she finished in the 1990 gubernatorial primary and the campaign hasn’t even begun.

Furthermore, the most recent SurveyUSA tracking shows Boxer with a significantly stronger approval, I result I don’t remember seeing before. But most importantly, with the internet and 24 hour news cycle the speed of politics is quickening and it should be pointed out that Feinstein’s boy Joe Lieberman was leading Ned Lamont 68-13 less than six months before losing the primary. If I were advising a potential gubernatorial candidate, that primary is one I’d suggest merits a good bit of study.

2. Her 1990 Primary Model Won’t Work this Generation

I’ll admit that I have no first hand memories of her 1990 (which is a good time to point out that people will be voting in the 2010 primary who weren’t even born for that race). But what I’ve heard and read seems to jive with this contempory analysis from the NYT (and the fact her husband funded more than half her campaign):

Her campaign also played heavily to women, arguing that only a woman could be trusted to fight off attempts to limit the right to abortion. […]

According to exit surveys by the California Poll, she ran extremely well among male voters. Her margin was 13 points among women, 9 points among men. ”Even if no women voted, Feinstein would have won,” said Mervin D. Field, director of the poll, a nonprofit, a nonpartisan, media-sponsored organization. He said that while her position on capital punishment helped, it was her forceful, charismatic style in the television age that won the election. ”It was style that did it, command presence,” he said.

Neither of these dynamics are available to her in 2010. First, choice is not an issue she can brag about defending. Other than a few weeks in the senate with HW Bush, her entire record of standing up for choice will be viewed by her caving to George W. Bush on judicial question after judicial question. She has been an unmitigated disaster on privacy and judicial questions and that talking point is out the window.

The next point is the frequently cited domination in the television age. While still relevant to a degree, numbers I’ve seen suggest that we are likely to face a situation in 2010 were more than 50% of California voters will have a Digital Video Recorder (think TiVo) by the time absentee ballots begin hitting. While political advertising staples like local evening news are programs that are less likely to be recorded by people with the devices, it still severely limits this as a path towards the nomination.

Finally, each technological age plays to the inherent strengths and skills of different types of politicians. Just like DiFi was able to gain a unique advantage by television complimenting her personality, so too is there a large advantage for candidates who are complimented well by the internet age. And the 2010 gubernatorial race is likely to be won online, in a universe foreign to her as a candidate.

3. Her Instincts are Obsolete

While age shouldn’t play a disproportionate role, the fact that Feinstein is one of the few people in America who is actually older than McCain is fair game when it comes to judging whether her political world-view is accurate or even relevant beyond the legacy power associated with being a sitting senator. My contention is that DiFi’s political calculation is based not on a firm set of beliefs, but by a political calculation based on outdated assumptions. I see the clearest example is her trying to censure Clinton for lying about a B.J. but not standing up to Bush for lying into war (a war she was fool enough to support). Her entire career is marked by her hatred of the left. From her losing for mayor (twice) to everyone trying to get her to pull out of the 1990 primary, to the constant barrage of phone calls her office fields from progressives asking her not to cave again on the latest issue, it is clear that her triangulation and fear of what the right will say is not just calculation, but a personal angst build over decades. While she was a leader in campaigning during the DLC era, those days have passed.

4. The Democratic Party has Passed Her By

Ask Phil Angelides, the CDP endorsement is a huge boost (and ask Carole Migden about the inverse of this dynamic). The people-powered movement has seen an influx of people getting more and more involved in internal party politics. This resurgence is in-spite of politicians like Feinstein, it is a direct result of the vacuum created by her style of politics. The question at the CDP is not whether DiFi should be rewarded with an endorsement for another office, but whether she should be censured for doing a miserable job in the office she currently holds. I fully expect to see yet another year of historic interest in next year’s Assembly District elections and DiFi lacks anything approximating a grassroots base. She succeeds in-spite of the base and the ability of top-down politics being able to overcome people is diminishing with each passing day.

5. President Barack Obama

In all likelihood, we are going to have a Democratic President. Yet even if he does lose, Obama is training a ton of people how to campaign in the 21st century. The same reasons that brought many of these people to Obama are likely to turn them off to Dianne Feinstein. Her campaign message as a gubernatorial candidate would be far closer to Hillary/McCain than Obama. It is tough to be the “change” candidate to “turn the page” when you lost the general election for the same office two decades earlier and are rightly seen as nearly a parody of inside-the-beltway thinking. Even if Obama doesn’t endorse, the support of his supporters is going to be worth far more than Dick Blum’s checkbook in a Democratic primary.

I have little doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee had it not been for her caving to right wing talking points and voting for the Iraq War. Being on the wrong side the the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation is what advanced her career from inevitable nominee to junior senator. At the time, many of us in the netroots were flabbergasted, we knew it was a disastrous course of action and came to the conclusion that those who sided with George Bush and the neocons either had no grasp of the situation or were doing it for as a purely political calculation (and a poor one at that as Clinton discovered).

Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy decision, but when it comes to the global climate crisis, I’m getting a sense of déjà vu from the positioning and language used by San Francisco Mayor and 2010 California Gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom as to why he’s siding with PG&E against the Sierra Club on clean, renewable energy.

As was reported this morning on Clean Energy Act getting seven of eleven votes on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and thus qualifying for the 2008 fall ballot:

San Francisco supervisors Tuesday approved the submission of a November ballot measure calling on the city to produce more than half of its energy through renewable sources within a decade, and also explore a move toward city control of its power.

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act calls for the city to fulfill 51 percent of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2017, rising to 75 percent by 2030, and 100 percent “or the greatest amount technologically feasible or practicable” by 2040.

The Charter Amendment says San Francisco wants clean, renewable energy and we need to set our sights on it and figure out how to make it happen. Sounds like something a Democrat facing a Democratic Primary would want to support, especially in light of Al Gore’s bold call to action to act even more aggressively.

Right Wing Talking Points Emerge

Democrats step up to fight against global climate change and you’ll be shocked to know that the polluters fought back using right-wing talking points:

A host of big-name politicos, including several supervisors, Assemblyman Mark Leno and former Public Utilities Commission manager Susan Leal, gathered on the steps of City Hall Tuesday to support the act.

“This is our time,” Supervisor Tom Ammiano said. “We’re going to win, and we’ll keep the lights on for you.”

Opponents, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say voters would see their utility rates spike if the city turns to public power. In mailers sent to voters last week, PG&E also says city government can’t even fill potholes and shouldn’t be granted another responsibility.

Look at the language in the mail. It didn’t defend PG&E, it attacked the very concept that government can deliver services. To defend PG&E’s monopoly profits, they are going after the very fundamentals of government. So did Mayor Gavin Newsom defend his city’s government, of buy into the right-wing talking points:

“Let’s call it what it is, it’s a public power initiative to take over PG&E … who are by any objective standards doing more than any other utility in the United States of America [to reduce greenhouse emissions],” Newsom said.

A campaign to defeat the initiative has already been formed through Newsom advisor Eric Jaye’s political consultant group.

There is so much, so wrong with that that I think it needs a list:

• It is not a takeover of PG&E, it is a push for 100% clean, renewable energy.
• If he’s right that PG&E is the best vehicle to move beyond fossil fuels, they will be the vehicle. However, when on the same day PG&E announces a $850-million carbon-based plant a few miles from San Francisco it might look ridiculous
• The right-wing talking points in the misleading mail cited above against San Francisco government being able to get anything done is being sent by the Mayor’s own chief consultant?

Why is Gavin Newsom trying to make Al Gore cry?