After an all-day drive from Los Angeles to Grand Junction, CO yesterday, and then another 4 hours or so from Grand Junction to Denver, I am finally in Denver and ready for tomorrow’s festivities at the Big Tent.  I didn’t get a chance to examine too much of the setup at the BT–I only got as far as the check-in desk before I had to run to take care of some other errands.  Either way, given the packed schedule being offered by the organizers, I doubt I’ll have much reason to leave.

I was duly impressed by the security surrounding the Pepsi Center.  As this is my first time in a city hosting a Presidential Convention, I really have no way of knowing whether or not this is “normal”–but all the entrances to the arena are effectively closed off by a very visible police presence.  The LoDo area was quite lively today and filled with people with all sorts of passes and badges relating to the convention happenings.

More tomorrow…

This one is a bit out of my price range, but I did want to let all Southern California readers know that Congressman Brad Sherman is hosting a reception for Charlie Brown on Wednesday, August 20th, at 7pm in Beverly Hills.  Presuming Charlie is present, of course, it would be a good opportunity for anyone who hasn’t gotten the pleasure of meeting him in person to finally do so (and throw in some money to the campaign, for those who can afford it!).

# $2300 Charlie’s Angel Host

# $500 Co-Host

# $150 General Admission

So as to protect the privacy of the hosts, I will refrain from posting the address details here.  But to RSVP or get more information, call or send an email to Scott Abrams in Sherman’s office:

(818) 817-9555

Scott at BradSherman dot com

Yesterday, the L.A. County Metro Board voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot a half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation projects.  The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Antonovitch and Fasana opposed.  Gloria Molina abstained, but was unhappy with the project specifications because it didn’t contain “equity” language guaranteeing that expenditures would be based on population.

Of course, nothing will come of it unless AB2321 gets through Senate Appropriations.

But assuming that happens, this means that L.A. County voters will get the chance to get freeway expansion, a subway to the Westside, a Gold Line extension to Claremont, light rail along Exposition Blvd, expansion of the Green Line to LAX, and a whole host of other expansions, all for an extra $1 of sales tax on every $200 worth of purchases.

I have a couple of observations on this below the fold.

First, the busriders union says they’ve going to do everything they can to defeat the measure.  All well and good.  I expected that, because they would likely oppose anything that doesn’t say that 100% of the money is going to buying more buses.

In my view, the “equity” language is a pile of crock, and I’m glad it got defeated.  Trying to base distribution of sales tax revenues by population percentage, rather than by need, is ludicrous.  As Supervisor Yaroslavsky pointed out, there are a lot of ways you can calculate equity.  The major hangup about equity, of course, is that the “rich Westsiders” are getting a larger percentage of the sales tax than their population would warrant, and Molina is none too happy about it.

Well, I have one question: have you seen the morning and evening commute along the 10?  It goes West in the morning, and East in the evening.  That’s because everyone is going to work on the Westside, and there’s no real public transportation infrastructure besides the 720 bus along Wilshire Blvd to actually get people to and fro.  That’s why we need to finally have a Westside subway extension that can hit mid-Wilshire, Beverly Hills, Century City and Santa Monica–the places where people want and need to go.

While I agree with the goals and ambitions of those who are promoting bike and ped paths, I don’t share these groups’ antipathy to freeway construction.  A lot of these groups were making the case that we shouldn’t be doing freeway construction because it allows for more pollution from cars.  I disagree with that.  There will come a day sooner rather than later when gars are green and run on fuel cells or electricity.  And when that day arrives, there will still be a need for arteries for those cars to get around.

So all in all, I will enthusiastically vote for this sales tax increase, and do everything I can to help it pass.  It’s a first step toward actually having a respectable public transportation system in Los Angeles County.

Or something.

I’m still trying to make heads and tails of Bob Drogin’s narrative in Thursday’s L.A. Times regarding John McCain’s campaign strategy, which seems to be treating the entire country like one giant New Hampshire:

CINCINNATI — When John McCain campaigned here last week, he relied on his signature event, an unscripted town hall meeting, to sway undecided voters in this crucial swing state.

The presumed Republican presidential nominee paced with a microphone at Xavier University, taking questions about energy, the economy and other issues from about 150 people.

Problem is, it doesn’t work.

(see extended…)

First, let’s talk pure logistics.  Running a general election campaign where there is one nationwide election day to focus on is not the same as a primary campaign, where (at the beginning at least) you can do retail politics across states with low population.

McCain’s brand of retail politics may have been effective in Iowa (where, remember, he came in second) and New Hampshire (where he won in a state that has traditionally been sympathetic to him), at which point the Republican nomination had essentially come down to between him and Huckabee when it was shown that Romney was such a disaster that he couldn’t even win in his own backyard.

But in a general election where you have to appeal to hundreds of millions of voters and get them to enthusiastically volunteer for your campaign and turn out all their friends and neighbors to vote for you as well, talking to 150 people in Cincinnati a couple of times a week just won’t cut it.

And that’s even if you’re working on weekends, which McCain just won’t do.

Instead, after workweeks full of fundraisers, town hall meetings and interviews, McCain has been, in campaign parlance, “down” on nearly every Saturday or Sunday for 20 weeks, largely sequestered away from the news media.

He’s usually spending time with family, friends and campaign advisers at residences in Arlington, Va., and Phoenix or vacation homes near Sedona, Ariz., and San Diego.

The problem is, though, that as much as McCain may enjoy bantering back and forth with (and perhaps insulting) participants at town hall meetings, he still can’t do jack to convince voters that he knows what the hell he’s talking about:

But McCain’s hourlong pitch didn’t persuade Rosemary Meinders, a wavering Democrat. His answers were too general, she said. “Honestly, I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

The next day, Janine Koss, a lifelong Republican, also was unconvinced after McCain met about 80 autoworkers at the General Motors Lordstown plant outside Youngstown. “Now I don’t know,” the 31-year-old assembly line worker said. “I really don’t know.”

I’m not really surprised that someone even a Republican would be ambivalent after hearing McCain speak.  After all, he came to California recently and told us that we should open up our beautiful coastline to offshore drilling because it would make us feel good:

“I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist – and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts – is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.”

Bottom line: McCain has a campaign strategy of talking (poorly) to small handfuls of voters a few times a week.

It’s not exactly like he has a choice, though.  What else is he going to do?  Go head-to-head with Obama on the traditional campaign strategy of big rallies and inspiring speeches?  Not even McCain’s rosiest sympathizers believe that’s an option.  As Drogin writes:

Aides and supporters say the freewheeling sessions showcase the Arizona senator as a straight-talking candidate who is an expert on policy issues and ready to be president. It also lets him display a sense of humor that, they admit, is more appealing than his formal speeches, which can sound stilted. Even some GOP leaders have panned his delivery.

Cottage cheese in a lime jello salad, anyone?  You can read the reviews on how it would look if McCain tried to match Obama on speeches.

But the other significant problem with McCain’s fondness for town halls goes beyond the fact that he just can’t close the deal.  In fact, he risks losing the sale altogether.

“He’s very good for TV because there’s often a surprise,” she said. “You’re never sure what he’s going to say next. He moves into uncharted territory more readily than other politicians.”

That worries some supporters. They say McCain’s unstructured sessions often overshadow efforts to communicate a single, clear message each day. Worse, they fear, the routine events now only produce national news when he makes an error. Indeed, McCain has made his worst gaffes during town hall meetings.

As much as Republican strategists may wish to convince themselves that McCain’s “authenticity” (i.e., saying whatever seems convenient, no matter how tactless or insulting) can win him the day, the truth is that–unlike Obama’s rallies that are often the size of small cities–the only serious press that small town halls can generate is…negative press when you make a gaffe.

Before the digital age, this was not such a big deal.  But now that anyone can be a journalist and all it takes is a small handheld camcorder, everything is fair game.  And that’s bad news for John McCain, who likes to go off the cuff as a sign of “authenticity”.

So basically, the Republicans nominated a someone who can’t give a speech worth a damn who loves to do town halls (but can’t do too many and has to keep the schedule light owing to his age and stamina) and who gives inconsistent policy positions at the town halls that make message discipline impossible and who makes frequent gaffes during them.

And all that, simply because Republican primary voters couldn’t find anyone less unpalatable.  Well played, GOP.

McCain has essentially turned himself not into a candidate, but into a walking POW war hero narrative whose relevance for the qualifications of the Presidency is not allowed to be questioned, all for a lack of consistency on any other issue.

I, for one, am certainly not losing any sleep over seeing that inviolate automatic qualification brought into question.  If it’s all they have, why not try to take it away?

Anyone who knows Eric Bauman, chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, knows that he has no compunction about giving fiery speeches and telling anyone exactly what’s on his mind.

And–in something the current CDP leadership should take note of–that includes Senator Dianne Feinstein.  Below the fold you’ll find Chairman Bauman’s full letter to Senator Feinstein regarding the upcoming FISA legislation to be considered in the Senate.

I fully expect that Eric’s name will be on the tongues of many grassroots CDP delegates this winter, as he is one of the early declared candidates for the CDP chairmanship.

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I write to you today to express my concerns, and the concerns of the members of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, regarding the FISA/telecom immunity bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is now in the US Senate. While we applaud your past attempts to work across the aisle with Senator Specter on a compromise bill, we urge you not to support any form of immunity for telecom companies who were complicit in the Bush Administration’s warrant-less wiretapping scheme.

LACDP members believe that the Congressional leadership has struck a deal that will further erode our civil liberties and circumvent the original FISA law. We ask that you not only oppose this new FISA/telecom immunity bill, but that you filibuster it to prevent its advancement in the US Senate.

Letting telecom companies off the hook violates our fundamental notions of privacy and justice – not to mention violating the protections of the US Constitution. These companies clearly violated the rights of individuals under federal law. To exculpate these corporations now, who were complicit with the Bush Administration in its transgressions, leaves countless scores of people with their rights violated and no legal recourse.

Including immunity in the FISA bill sets a terrible precedent. It sends a message to companies everywhere that they may trample rights of individuals at the behest of the government without recourse. Such an arrangement allows corporations to become de facto arms of an outlaw administration, a dangerous expansion of powers in a time when checks on the executive are few. The only way to stop this arrangement is to hold companies accountable for their actions instead of granting immunity.

It is true that litigation against the telecom companies could potentially be severe in cost – but can we really put a price on preserving the US Constitution?  Can we put a price on protecting individual privacy and checking limitless executive power? We think not, and for those reasons we ask not only for your opposition to the House bill, but your leadership in conducting a filibuster to block passage of this dangerous and erosive legislation.

Most Sincerely,

Eric C. Bauman

Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Back in March of 2008, Speaker Pelosi said the following in a conference call with bloggers, as reported by TPM:

Exclusivity is the issue.

To which Kagro X at DailyKos counters, with irrefutable proof: No it isn’t.

Here’s the “exclusivity” provision of the old FISA law, still on the books when George W. Bush instituted his illegal programs:

[P]rocedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

The “administration’s” lawyers — people like John Yoo — advised Bush that the president had the “inherent power” to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of “national security.” So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

The upshot is: how can exclusivity be the issue in this new FISA fight if the airtight exclusivity in the previous recension of the bill didn’t stop the Bush Administration from completely ignoring it?

This is not hard: having an exclusivity provision in a law is only useful when dealing with people who don’t intend to break it.  If you’re dealing with people who have broken similar laws before, the one thing you’d want to make sure you put on there is a guarantee that those who do break it will pay a price of some kind.

If you give immunity to organizations that were complicit in breaking the law; if you do not enforce inherent contempt against those who are in a position to know what lawbreaking was done when they refuse to testify; and if you take the threat of pressing charges against those who break the law off the table; then you may as well not have any laws at all.  Doesn’t matter if those laws have an all-hallowed “exclusivity provision” or not.

It’s an exercise that nobody likely cared very much about four years ago.  And I would imagine that people aren’t likely to care about it four years from now, because it seems that the Democratic primary process will have undergone some modification by then.  But right now, who California’s at-large DNC members–i.e., superdelegates–are, has captured the popular imagination.

An election like this doesn’t happen every day.  In fact, only about 300 people get to vote  for these voters (who do DNC business besides, but that’s not nearly as sexy) every four years.  This year, I happened to be one of them, as I was proxying for Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti.

Brian gave you the election results earlier.  But what’s the voting process like?  We all believe in election integrity, after all.

For more, go below the fold.  With photos.

I got to the voting room right at about 9:05am, before there was a huge line.  But even at that, the process reminded me of a Presidential caucus: you have to pass through a gauntlet of sign-waving campaigners to get to your voting room:

Once there, the process is exceedingly efficient: you sign in to get your ballot.  Doesn’t matter who you are, you still have to stand in line.  Here’s our own Matt Lockshin checking in voting Executive Board members, with Congresswoman Barbara Lee next in line:

Once you’ve signed for your ballot, you sit at a table and fill in a scantron sheet as if you were taking the SAT.  Complete with proctors to make sure no funny business is going on!

Once you’ve filled out your ballot, you take your ballot over to the scanton-box combination.  The machine scans your ballot.  If there’s a problem–like an overvote or a spoiled ballot–it will spit it back out at you.  If it’s valid, it will spit it into the awaiting box.

And that’s how the people who help elect the next President of the United States are themselves elected.  You always knew you were curious.