All posts by Dante Atkins

“California Counts” using DIRECT MAIL to gather signatures for Dirty Tricks!

I opened my mailbox this afternoon to find something truly amazing–and something I just knew couldn’t have been for a Democratic activist like myself: an envelope from California Counts, the organization funded by Darrell Issa to resurrect the Dirty Tricks Initiative from the dead.  It turns out that, yes, the envelope was in fact directed to whatever Republican apparently dared to inhabit my apartment before my girlfriend and I arrived to dispel the traces of the dark side that must have apparently been lingering there.

Regardless, I considered it a stroke of good fortune that this thing fell into my lap–not only because it allows me an opportunity to give some insight into what they’re up to, but also because it’s downright hilarious.  More below–including a picture!

First and foremost, I have to admit that what they’re doing is rather sophisticated–the envelope contains a fundraising letter from Darrell Issa, as well as a petition to sign.  So it seems organized in that regard, though a little bit on the expensive side–collecting petition signatures through direct mail can’t be that easy a process.

The fundraising solicitation is pretty boilerplate, with the usual talking points about how it’s not a partisan initiative because Michael Dukakis got 48% of the vote in 1988 but still didn’t get any electoral votes, and how candidates have no reason to come to California, etcetera, whereas the new initiative already in use in other states (namely, the powerhouses of Maine and Nebraska)

will lead candidates to campaign in every district of California.

Of course, why it will do that is still a mystery, give the fact that most CDs in California are hopelessly gerrymandered and even if you could find one that was still in play, it’s a lot easier to stay in the East Coast and campaign in New Hampshire and Maine for 4 votes a piece than to come all the way out here to see if maybe, just maybe, you can peel off one measly EV you might not otherwise have gotten.

But I get ahead of myself.  You see, the fundraising letter makes a big deal about how the initiative is non-partisan.  And yet for some reason Darrell Issa just has to mention that he helped organize the recall of Gray Davis, and that the “liberal media” wants to convince you that the initiative has a partisan purpose.

Even at that, I may have been willing to suspend my disbelief and assume for the sake of magnanimity that California Counts really did believe in their heart of hearts that the recall was purely about accountability, and that the Dirty Tricks Initiative really is non-partisan, and that the media is just inherently liberal in its reporting that the initiative has a partisan purpose, even though it is funded by Darrell Issa, the financiers of the Swift Boat Vets, Hitachk and other well-known GOP operatives.  But the envelope that the solicitation came in kind of burst my bubble a little bit:

So basically, it’s non-partisan, it really is, except for the fact that the liberal media doesn’t think so, it’s organized by the same guy who recalled Gray Davis, and Hillary Clinton doesn’t want you to open the letter.  So other than the fact that Republicans are pushing for it and it will hurt Democrats and the media thinks it’s a dishonest piece of crap–other than that, it’s non-partisan.

It’s funny in certain ways–but very sad and simultaneously very terrifying in others–that the Republicrooks can be so hypocritical that they will contradict themselves so repeatedly and so patently in fundraising solicitations to their own supporters.  I don’t know how they live with the logical disconnect.  But then again, that’s why I’m not a Republican.  As Bill Clinton said in his speech at the Empowerment Summit at UCLA over the weekend:

I spent a long time trying to get into the reality based world, and I like it here.

I’m right with you there, Mr. President.

The WGA Strike: What it’s all about

FULL DISCLOSURE: My company, The Pollux Group, is under verbal contract with the WGA as a communications facilitator.

The entertainment industry is one of the staples of California’s economy, and as you may know, the union that represents the vast majority of the people who write the syndicated shows we all watch-the Writers Guild of America-is going on strike.  While I prefer not to be overly judgmental about the news coverage the strike has received, I have seen news reports across a wide variety of media that mischaracterizes the position of the Writers Guild on many of the negotiating issues that are causing the strike.  I’d like to clarify what the WGA is asking for on many of the issues under contention (that is to say: this is not just a strike over DVDs by rich writers who want even more.)

Far more below.

1) Residuals.  The AMPTP (the network execs) originally wanted to implement draconian rollbacks in the residual structure paid to writers.  That’s where they started the negotiations.  Needless to say, that is completely unacceptable: at any given time, 48% of WGA members are unemployed, owing to the “per-project” payment structure of screenwriting.  The rank and file of WGA writers rely on residuals from previous work to make it day to day, and eliminating them would be catastrophic.  We’re not dealing with a bunch of greedy rich writers who are out for even more.

2) DVD sales.  As things currently stand, the WGA receives a .3% share of DVD sales.  On a $15 DVD, that amounts to a measly 4 cents paid to the people who wrote the show in the first place.  The only reason the residual rate is that low in the first place is because during the 1988 negotiations, the AMPTP argued that home video was yet an unproven market, and could be a losing investment for them.  Well, now that home video is a proven moneymaker for the studios, the WGA is asking for an increase to .6% of DVD sales.  That’s an extra 4 cents on the $15 DVD in question.  That’s it.

3) Permanent Downloads.  This is a huge sticking point, because both the WGA and the AMPTP realize that permanent digital downloading of entertainment media over the internet is the next big thing.  Even though permanent downloads are far more profitable for the AMPTP because of the lack of overhead involved (essentially, pure profit minus the hosting costs), the AMPTP wants to apply the same residual payment structure to permanent downloads that they currently do to DVD sales.  The WGA, which has already been shafted for 20 years on DVD sales, wants a greater percentage.  And just like they did with home video 20 years ago, the AMPTP is once again saying that internet downloading is too uncertain a source of revenue for the WGA to get the 2.5% (yes, two and a half cents on every dollar of internet broadcasting revenue) that they’re asking for, instead of the 3/10ths of a cent the AMPTP wants to give them.

Of course, Jon Stewart has a pithy response to that stale argument:

There are other issues involved as well: currently, writers who work on animation and reality (such as Calitics’ own David Dayen) TV aren’t under the same contract structure with the same labor protections as the WGA guildmembers who write scripted shows–but the studios and networks make just as much money off of reality as they do scripted shows, and the two are often syndicated right next to each other in the programming guide.  The WGA would like to extend the protection of their contract to writers who work on reality shows and animation.

These are the things at issue here.  And it’s not like the studios are struggling to get by either.  Just check out these stats from Viacom’s latest earnings report (by the way, notice the messages to Wall Street about Viacom’s expanding presence in the digital market?  Kind of conflicts with the whole “we don’t know how much the internet will take off” garbage they’re peddling to the WGA.

Some strike captains from the WGA have set up a group blog where you can get all the WGA strike coverage you can handle.  Come check out United Hollywood and show us your support and leave feedback.

And one last shout out: this strike wouldn’t be meaningful without the support of other Hollywood unions, like SAG and the local Teamsters 399.

Bill Clinton’s remarks before the EmpowerChange Summit

David Dayen and I attended the EmpowerChange summit at UCLA today, put on by the American Democracy Institute.  Bill Clinton gave an address, which I transcribed (rather roughly) and am pasting below the fold.

I didn’t get the chance to attend any significant portion of any of the workshops that were offered at the summit; I caught the tail-end of the ecology workshop, but that was just about it.

I will say that this was probably the only speech I’ve attended as media in which the media got the worst seat in the house.  We were shunted all the way to the back corner of Royce Hall for the speech.

Remarks below.

You know, for most of my life, I was the youngest person doing what I was doing, and then once I was the oldest guy in the room, and I trace the journey from there to here.

I’ve been briefed on what you’ve been exposed to and I want to talk about the world beyond this auditorium-the world of your future.  I’ve been to about 90 countries since I left the White House.  I’ve gotten AIDS drugs to 71 countries, and my foundation has operations in Latin America and Africa.  I’ve worked on Tsunami relief and now I’m working on greenhouse gas emissions.  I raise money from the wealthiest, but my office is in harlem, the epicenter of the child obesity problem.  So I see the world in a way that’s more fully than I did when I was president.  I have my meetings, but I might be out in the country talking to people who have never been elected to anything.  I was in a rural area of Malawi, and we were building a 100 bed hospital.  And we got construction jobs to people who had never drawn a paycheck.

I look at America and think about what it will be like for you.  Obviously there are a lot of good things about the modern world.  You have opportunities through your own efforts and the encouragement of others.  And this crowd is so much more interesting than if we had had a meeting like this 30 years ago.  It’s more diverse in terms of religion and culture, and there are more women.  But the world beyond here has three challenges:

1) persistent, enduring inequality.  Half the world’s people live on less than $2 a day, and 130,000,000 never go to school.  Just that many more don’t have teachers.  1 in 4 deaths will be from AIDS, TB, malaria, or dirty water.  We have people with AIDS in America, Europe and Japan, but with the drugs you can still lead a normal life.  There is persistent inequality.  After 6 years of economic recovery, you take President Bush’s line to Iowa, you might get roughed up before you left because the gains have gone to the top 1%.  Median incomes have declined by $1000 this decade.  4% of Americans have fallen below the poverty line working full time.  Half of bankruptcies are from healthcare.  And we have lousy programs at keeping people well.  I’m the oldest of the baby boomers.  We will be ranked first in one category: the oldest senior population on earth.  Male life expectancy is 83 years, female is 85.  But if we use the same medical services, we will impose an unconscionable burden on your ability to raise kids.  And if these obesity rates and diabetes continue, this generation will be at risk of having a shorter lifespan than their parents.

2) The energy use patterns are completely unsustainable.  Because of global warming (and thank goodness Al Gore won the Nobel Prize) and because of resource depletion, we are losing forest cover, potable water, topsoil at substantial rates-only Brazil and Argentina substantially increased grain production.  We’re extincting species at the fastest rate in human history.  According to some geologists, we only have 50 years of recoverable oil.  And the world’s population is projected to grow to 9 billion by mid-century.  Putting this in perspective, the first person on the African Savannah 150,000 years ago was in Tanzania, and our predecessors wandered around Africa for 90,000 years.  By 8,000 years ago, there were 5 great civilizations-Iraq, China, Middle East, Mexico and Peru.  And then India.  It took us 150,000 years to get from 1 to 6 ½ billion, and we’re going to 9 billion in 43 years.  Gives us a new perspective on immigration, doesn’t it?  All these people will be born in the countries that can least support them.  And by that time all these people will be praying to take us back to 2007 when there are no problems.

3) We’re more interconnected than many of us can manage.  We have a cluster of identity conflicts.  The most severe is represented by Al-Qaeda-a global anti-cosmopolitanism.  They want everyone to agree with their version of Islam, which got them in trouble.  But if you see the conflict between Tamil and Sinhalese Buddhists, between Israel and Palestine-the Tamil conflict is taking twice as many lives as the conflict in Irsael.  And more Israelis will die from organized crime than from Palestianians.  And then there is the Muslim population in France.  Or the British-when they had their terrorist attacks, they were homegrown British citizens whose Muslim identity was stronger than their British identity, and even stronger than the identity with other Muslims.  Same thing with immigration in the US.  It’s based on interdependence.  We can’t just stay with our crowd.

In that environment, there are three great responsibilities, particularly if you want to exercise a leadership role.  First is, be the best you you can be.  You live in a time and circumstance with a luxury nobody else has had in the last 50 years.  You can choose what you want to do with your work.  Throughout most of human history, people worked to stay alive.  You have dreams and ability, and don’t denigrate what you will wind up doing with the waking hours of your life.  Find joy in your life and your work when you have the option to do so.  That’s what makes the global economy work.  The second thing is, be a good citizen.  It’s unconscionable, with the depth and complexity of the elections, with the issues facing the world, that voter turnout is so low, especially with young people who have more tomorrows than yesterdays.  And I would argue that the third thing you have to do is find some way as a private citizen of advancing the public good through citizen service.  There will never be a time with the market economy will solve all the world’s problems, which is why the Gates foundation is making such a difference, or why my foundation by spending only 10% of what the government spends, accounts for 30% of new additions to drug programs.  And this is sweeping the world.  There are 1 million foundations.  Half of them are formed in this decade.  When I became president in 93, there were just about none in Russia, but now there are 400,000.  China has 200,000 registered NGOs, and there are at least 500,000 in India.  But there’s something everyone can do.  I recently wrote a book designed solely to show why there is an explosion in citizen activity and how everyone can take a difference now matter who they are or how much time they have.  We need to change the definition of being a good citizen to do something all the time to contribute to civil society in America and all around the world.

Just one example-I just recently came from the US conference of mayors in Seattle and announced that my foundation, working with the 40 cities around the world, had brokered discounts for green technology.  And that I was helping every city in America do the same thing.  When Gore and I concluded the Kyoto treaty, the Congress believed it would ruin the economy.  Nobody believes that any more.  People know that we caused global warming and we need to fix it.  But there was little thought about operationalizing it.  So very few of those who signed it  will meet or beat the targets.  But look at those who did.

Tiny Denmark, governed by a conservative coalition, has beaten its Kyoto targets and grew the economy 50% with no extra energy use and reduction in greenhouse gases.  The result is that their unemployment rate is the same as ours but their median wage is going up.  They took the opportunity to generate jobs.  And there’s the United Kingdom, the country most close to ours.  Their wages are rising and inequality is going down, and they’re meeting Kyoto targets too.  They thought about how to operationalize it.  You know how to use technology, you know the options available.  Goldman Sachs commissioned a study that says that if the United States reached Japan’s efficiency level, and China, Russia and India did too, it would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 20%.  But we need to reduce 80% by 2050.  But the point is, you can all be a part of that.  I organized these cities and we’re going to start with energy efficiency by retrofitting buildings.  Many cities couldn’t afford it, so we got the banks to sponsor it, and the utility savings will pay off the financing.  And if it doesn’t, the bank guarantees will kick in.  But that 5 billion-if you double it-there are three square block areas of Los Angeles that are worth more than  5 billion.  So the amount of money available is way lower than it ought to be.  And doing something is one thing, but knowing how to and having the infrastructure is another thing.  But people like you can lead the way.  And with oil at $80 a barrel, it’s economical.  India has dedicated 500 million to clean energy.  We have to have a successor to Kyoto and sign onto it in a hurry.  It is the key to your economic prosperity in the future.

And one last thing: we’re working toward a presidential campaign.  But what you need to do is make sure the election is not taken from you by triviality.  I watched the debate for 2 hours.  And I didn’t mind Hillary being asked the immigration question, I minded that none of the other candidates were asked about it and had 30 seconds to respond.  And if we turn immigration into a 30-second sound bite, the politics of fear and division will win.  We have 12 million people here undocumented and most of them are working.  Nobody wants to discriminate against people who have come here legally, but you can’t throw out all those people either.  This is a mind-boggling problem.  And don’t you let them turn it into a 10-second soundbite.  And no president gives drivers licenses.  The states do that.  But that soundbite allows people to fulminate.  It’s a serious issue.  And climate change is a serious issue.  But I didn’t learn anything about climate change, education, healthcare, the most urgent domestic problem that most families face, about wage stagnation, about how our young people can afford college after deliberate government policies making it harder to afford college-right now, you have a better chance of going to college if you’re at the top 25% of your income group and the bottom 25% of your class than the other way around, and less if it’s vice versa.  No matter who you are, this is your life, and there will never be a time when citizen action can supplant the need for effective government.

Right now, my life isn’t in politics.  If Hillary wasn’t running, my life would be in the non-governmental world.  And you can get a lot done.  But our most effective work is done when poor countries ask us to do things and rich nations help us finance them.  There is no country that has solved healthcare by relying on the market model.  It won’t work.  You need public involvement and a public framework.  This is your life.  Whoever you’re for, whatever your party, don’t let this election be taken away.  You may not have a more important election.  The choices made by the next president and the next Congress will decide whether in the future, you have a world that likes America, or whether they’ll see us in a much more negative way, and whether we can reach across these divides, or continually bumping up against each other.  Whether we will slowly let the American dream die by giving tax cuts to my income group and borrowing money to pay soldiers, or whether everyone will  play their part in making it stronger.

These are huge issues.  And regardless of politics, just ask that the candidates and their interlocutors in the media give the issues they attention they deserve.  Don’t make artificial fights.  Make reasoned judgments.  Have your feelings, but don’t escape the reality-based world.

Ron Suskin co-wrote the memoirs of Paul O’Neill.  He then wrote a book about the neocon foreign policy choices, called the one percent solution.  They lamented that we’re of a lower order because we are all trapped in the reality-based world, whereas they understood that if America had the guts, they could change reality.  And presumably, Iraq has changed that.  And I say, I was raised in an alcoholic home.  I spent a long time trying to get into the reality based world, and I like it here.

Escaping from it is something that we do at a hazard.  You need to have your feet on the ground.  Wish the world as it could be, but understand the facts.  And in order to live a fulfilling life, you need work that you can be proud of and do it as best as you can.  You will need to be a voter, activist, someone who cares.  Someone concerned about public problems and advancing the public good, even if you’re not in office and it’s not election season.  Being a citizen in the 21st century can be demanding, but it can be the most exciting, diverse time in human history.  And if so, it’ll be because of the visions of countless millions of people.  And I hope you’ll lead the way.

Thank you.

Another blogger takes aim at Nunez

Namely, me.

I had originally drafted a resolution taking specific aim at Speaker Nunez’ “campaign-related” travel expenses–you can find the resolution quoted below the fold for your amusement.

However, I have been assured by our own Brian Leubitz, who sits on the Resolutions committee, that any resolution such as the one seen below the fold will be rejected out of hand by the resolutions committee on the grounds that it is not of philosophical intent or some such, and instead takes aim at a particular politician.

Or something.  Because the resolution against Alberto Gonzales I “wrote” for the previous e-board meeting did exactly the same thing.

Regardless, they’ll look for an excuse to throw it out, and they won’t have to look far.  So what I’m going to do is author a second resolution–especially in light of Perata’s extravagances discussed by the SacBee–calling for the CDP to support accountability and transparency regarding the travel expenses of all California politicians.

We’ll see how they handle that.  I will be writing this resolution and distributing it at the meetings for both Region 10 and Region 13 coming up this weekend–once written, I will post it at Calitics.

In the meantime, PLEASE attend your Regional Meeting this weekend.  At the end of the delegate meeting, members of the Platform Committee–including myself in regions 10 and 13–will be hearing testimony regarding the platform.

As promised, below the fold is the resolution I intended to submit regarding our jetsetting Speaker.

P.S. It’s positively excellent to have bloggers on our committees.  I know of at least three–Brian on Resolutions, me on Platform, and rebelatheart on Voter Services.

CALLING FOR TRANSPARENCY REGARDING THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF SPEAKER NUÑEZ

WHEREAS, travel expenses for members of the State Assembly are legally required to have a legislative purpose;

WHEREAS, The Los Angeles Times has reported that Speaker of the State Assembly Fabian Nuñez has accrued travel expenses in the tens of thousands of dollars, including bills of several thousand dollars each at exclusive hotels and restaurants in Europe and the United States, while Senator Don Perata has accrued no travel expenses over the past three years;

WHEREAS, there is definite question as to the possible legislative intent behind travel expenses to some of Europe’s finest hotels, restaurants and vineyards;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, gathered at the meeting of the Executive Board in Anaheim, California, calls upon Speaker Nuñez to explain the legislative purpose behind his travel expenses at these select locales, as well as identify his colleagues in the matters of legislative intent discussed thereat.

Next Wednesday: L.A. Westside Drinking Liberally PLUS Calitics Q3 blograiser!

Come join us in next Wednesday for Drinking Liberally, Westside version, as we once again combine it with the Calitics end-of-quarter blograiser!

We’ll have at least one Congressional Candidate in attendance: Ron Shepston, who is challenging CREW list corrupt Congressman Gary Miller in CA-42.  Also in attendance will be Tim Goodrich of Iraq Vets Against the War.  There may be other special guests as well–more updates to follow.

“Official” announcement, including starting time and address, below the fold.

General Petraeus: Did He Betray Us?

There, we’ve said it, too.  The Iraq war is on all of our minds, and all over the news this month.  Come discuss your thoughts and possible actions with like-minded liberal drinkers, and special invited guests.  Plus your friends, neighbors, veterans and other concerned citizens.

It’s also the end of 3rd Quarter, so we’ll be partnering with Calitics.com to celebrate the end of the fundraising quarter of their ActBlue effort.  Go to http://www.calitics…. and give to progressive candidates and causes, then come toast yourself!  Come meet the bloggers who write for Calitics and other well-known progressive blogs that you read every day!

We hope to see you next Wednesday, 9/26, 7p.m.-whenever, at our home at:
Cock ‘n’ Bull Pub
2947 Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica (between Ocean Park and Rose, east side of Lincoln)
– street and lot parking
– cash only

Yours in liberal libations, and against this stinkin’ war,

Dante, Dave, Jim & Mary, your new Westside co-hosts

Some thoughts on McNerneygate

After participating in some of the lengthy discussions on Jerry McNerney’s Iraq occupation quotes in WaPo and DailyKos, I felt compelled to put up my own thoughts in a post here.  If you feel like more of this, please follow below the fold.

First things first:  there are other issues besides quotes in the media about the occupation of Iraq.  First of all, there are all of Jerry’s votes in Iraq.  Someone else besides me–I think it was kid oakland, and I for some reason can’t find the post–made a list of all of Jerry’s votes about Iraq.  Except for McGovern, they were exactly what we would want and expect.  And Jerry had his own reasons for the McGovern bill that he explained to me in an interview with me when I went to DC.

Now, this doesn’t mean that how Jerry is quoted in major beltway media outlets isn’t important.  It is, especially when it seems like he’s flip-flopping to cater to two different audiences.  If nothing else, we like consistency in our politicians.

But we have to remember two things.  First of all, Jerry is a freshman incumbent who doesn’t have very much experience with media and wasn’t a politician to begin with.  And secondly, especially given the grumbling complaints that a few of us have expressed with Jerry’s staff in DC, the message his staff seems to be trying to create for him will only serve to amplify the complaints about how Jerry deals with interactions in the media.

That said, I think that we in the netroots tend to take a much bigger focus on the media than anyone else in the country does because that’s what we’re all about as an enterprise.  One of the main raisons d’etre of our entire movement is media accountability, which leads us to place an excessive amount of attention to anything said and done in traditional political media establishments such as the Washington Post.  So a centrist-style flip-flop in the Washington Post will alienate us a great deal, but I can just about guarantee you that it’s not what the average voter in Lodi and Stockton is living and dying on.

All this talk about removing Jerry from ActBlue pages or other stuff is insane, in my book.  The only reason anybody is even contemplating it is because, well, we all put a lot of work into Jerry’s campaign.  That’s true.  But because of all the effort we put in, we put Jerry on a pedestal that perhaps no candidate belongs being on.  He became a netroots hero,  primarily because of the contrast between him and Richard Pombo.  And there still is that huge contrast, and a few quotes out of context in the Washington Post written by a reporter who is intentionally trying to push a “Dems in disarray” storyline isn’t going to change that.

But expecting someone–especially a freshman with little political experience–to say and do the right thing every single time is a bit naive, especially in the face of DC staff who might be pushing messaging that we in the netroots would be opposed to.  And it’s especially not going to happen in a district that still leans Republican and which the NRCC has identified as one of their top targets.

Finally, there are so many issues at work here besides the occupation of Iraq.  There is the problem of health insurance.  Energy and environment (where Jerry has been an extremely strong leader, statewide and nationwide).  Restoring the constitution.

I think, honestly, that we should hold the “we’ve been betrayed” talk for a time when we’ve actually been betrayed.  Jerry will have his disagreements with us on a few issues.  But hey–imagine if any of us ran for Congress.  We disagree with each other a lot of the time, and if any of us ran for office we would have wide areas of agreement with each other on the vast majority of issues, but we would have disagreements on strategy a great deal of time.

Bottom line is, hanging Jerry out to dry because of some quotes in the Washington Post is a horrible idea.  If anything, Jerry needs on-the-job training on how to deal with media, because the truth is, he wants to end the occupation of Iraq.  And the other truth is that we need Republicans to help us end the occupation of Iraq.  I think it’s naive to believe, as Jerry apparently does, that they’ll willingly come to the table without more strong-arm tactics.  But if you take what Jerry actually said–namely, that sometimes we don’t agree with the Democratic leadership, and that we need Republican help to end the occupation–both of those are true.  How often have we on the blogs said, “what the heck are they doing, anyway?”

The only difference is that we don’t go saying that crap to reporters at the Post who are out to hurt our efforts.

Last point:  I’d like everyone to think about the storyline that would be created by a public abandonment of Jerry because of some Washington Post quotes.  I don’t think it’s a good one.

Conference Call with Speaker Nunez


I just got off a blogger conference call (primarily on budget issues) with Speaker Nunez.  Julia Brian, Rick Jacobs, Robert Cruickshank, Brian Leubitz and I got to ask questions.  Below the fold you’ll see some notes that I took on the conference call.  My apologies is some of the stuff seems inconsistent.

Transcript of sorts below the fold.

Julia here  I am going to go in an clean up a few pieces here, add some information in brackets where Dante missed a bit of the things the Speaker said.  I am told there will be a video coming in YouTube format.  We will get that up when it is available.  Let me emphasize that these are notes, not a real transcript.
Brian here: I added the video that the Speaker’s office uploaded. The playlist contains pretty much the entire call. I know I’d like to thank the Speaker for spending some time with us, and for fighting the good fight. Now, to get some of those transportation funds back…and the Vehicle License Fee.

SPEAKER NUNEZ: wants to let everyone know what’s going on with the budget impasse.  Will take questions.  The budget that was approved by the Assembly was described by George Skelton as a Republican budget.  He [Nunez] doesn’t believe that.  It’s not the budget he would have liked for California, but we don’t have the two-thirds power to pass a budget that he thinks would work, so he has to compromise.  They compromised on the blind, disabled and the elderly, they agreed to deep cuts to public transportation.  We cut over 900 million on local transportation agencies.  We had to make deep cuts in that area.  But I was able to protect higher education and public education, and many of the important social programs that people need to have dignity in their lives.  We were able to concoct a responsible budget with $3.7 billion in the account, with a deficit of  $700 million.  And not having that would have required deeper cuts to education and social programs that were outside of my values.

Some people were critical of a tax package.  I want to be very clear.  I don’t support tax credits or corporate giveaways, but I support the Hollywood production tax credit because it generates more revenue for the states, but I don’t support the other types of tax credits.  It was very clear to me and Sen. Villone that this will never go to the Senate because we did it at the 11th hour.  It was a way for the Republicans to exercise some of their values.

Senator Ackerman began to denounce the Assembly and demand deeper cuts in the budget.  Already, there were $7 million of line-item veto cuts in the budget.  Any type of tax credit, as long as I’m speaker, we won’t do that.  #2, I won’t entertain a discussion to dilute the AB32 bill to reduce greenhouse gas issues.  The Republicans want us to dilute it.  A 25% decrease by 2020.  And that is real leadership to combat global warming.  I won’t entertain a discussion to dilute it.  #3, if Senator Ackerman wants me to re-engage the budget, I’ll want a restoration of public transportation, restoration of the SSI/SSP, and restoring the social programs in California.  I also won’t entertain discussion of corporate tax credits or borrowing more money for water storage for as long as I’m speaker.  We as Democrats need to draw the line in the sand on the ultra-conservatives like Mr. McClintock who are hijacking the budget.  As a reasonable legislator, I won’t reward that type of behavior.  I’m done negotiating this budget unless I get more of what I want in it.  It had votes from Republicans in the Assembly.  We’re at a budget impasse, and I’m hoping that the gang of 14 in the Senate finally allows their members to approve a budget to the people of this state.

RICK JACOBS:  Thanks for doing the call.  I have a question on public perception, with everyone in the state saying that the legislature is just a trainwreck and can’t agree on everything.  I want to talk about how to help prevent that.  Second, how do we start to frame everything that is happening by this small group of Republicans along two lines: First, they’re obstructionist, they don’t want the state to pay its bills, and that along with the fact that politically they’re trying to divide the state with this new electoral vote scheme, and when can we use this to say that prop 13 isn’t a good way to run a state:

SPEAKER NUNEZ: These are very good questions.  On your first point, the conservative Republicans, not just here but nationwide, are trying to figure out how to make a comeback.  They’re trying to follow the Gingrich model of shutting down government.  They think that if you shut it down, the Republican ideology prevails.  So if you’re not paying your bills to elderly care or child care, then they think they’re winning.  SEIU members are working every day, so is the legislature. [This was in the context of Nunez discussing radio ads SEIU is conducting that calls on the legislature to come back to work.  The Speaker notes that the Assembly did their work and they were not the hold up.]  They’re very confusing messages.  I did an interview today on Spanish TV, and they say, you’re the speaker, you solve the problem.  But we have a 2/3rds vote requirement on the budget.  When stuff like this happens, it makes people think that government doesn’t work, and that’s what Republicans love.  They don’t want governments to work for other people.  Now, about the initiative, it’s a total power grab and a very clever ploy.  They want to take those districts, and that can help keep a Republican in the White House.  They’re pretty well coordinated.  This could put in danger not only California, but the future of the whole nation.  Through manipulation, lies and deceit.  We have to be careful.  And about Prop 13, the way we tax in this state is very antiquated.  It’s modeled based on the economy 50, 60, 70 years ago.  We’re a sales-tax based economy.  We need to rethink this strategy and look at the growing industries that  are playing a critical role.  People purchase things over the internet, and people don’t pay the state sales tax on that.  Business properties, for instance-you’ll pay taxes based on the cost of a home, but on a business property, it doesn’t work that way.  You’re not paying based on value, you’re paying it based on whatever it is based on whoever purchased it 20 years ago.  It’s inconsistent.  That discussion needs to happen, but the real discussion needs to be the 2/3rds vote requirement.  If we can change that, we can be well on our way to being thoughtful about how to balance the budget.

JULIA ROSEN: A couple of questions.  First, what initiative were you referring to?

SPEAKER NUNEZ: They’ll be out collecting signatures that will change the way we collect electoral votes.  It will require the state to deliver electoral votes based on Congressional districts as opposed to winner-take-all.  For it to work, it would need to happen in every state, but these people are looking to place a Republican in the white house.  This is in the works.  They haven’t started collecting signatures yet, but they’re trying to raise money for it and we’re going to try to defeat it.

JULIA ROSEN: What would it take to remove that 2/3rds requirement?

SPEAKER NUNEZ: A constitutional amendment that we’d have to put in front of the voters.  We’re clearly in a bad situation.  38 days late, a lot of people aren’t getting paid.  We need to use this scenario to demonstrate that the problem is the 2/3rds vote requirement.  We’re one of only 3 states that does this, and the ultra-conservatives are holding up the budget and they’re demanding that I negotiate it, but the only thing that will come out of that is more cuts.  And I’m not going to do that.  The 2/3rds vote threshold is allowing the 10% minority to hold this up.  And hopefully, we can be taken to a 55% or a simple majority budget, which we’ve tried before but didn’t win.  This isn’t just the legislature holding it up.  This is the ultra-conservative Republicans in the Senate.

ROBERT CRUICKSHANK: How does this affect the healthcare bill?

SPEAKER NUNEZ: My hope is that it won’t affect AB8.  This is not a fully done proposal yet.  This is 3.8 million people that will now have insurance if this bill passes.  If we can get a couple of Republican votes, 2 in the Senate and 6 in the Assembly, then we can get this done.  And if Congress expands SCHIP, then we can cover more children through federal dollars for people 300% above poverty level.  It’s a simple majority bill, and Senator Perata said something about not taking up any legislation in the Senate.  That was news to me.  I don’t think we need to hold the Democratic agenda hostage to those who are holding the budget hostage.  The good Democratic bills need to move through the legislature.  My hope is that we can negotiate AB8, get back to the table and get it to the governor’s desk.

DANTE ATKINS: could you discuss the term limits initiative?  A lot of people are saying that it’s just a way for people already in office to stay there.

SPEAKER NUNEZ: My consultant is one of the ones on that campaign.  What it does is very simple.  Under current term limit rules, any one person can run for office for 12 years.  When I’m termed out of the Assembly, I can run for the Senate in 2010, and serve 8 years in the Senate.  That would be 14 years.  This initiative would reduce my lifetime service to 12 years, or to go to the Senate.  The idea is to incentivize members to stay in the House that they were elected to so we don’t have this musical chairs problem.  We’re supposed to be policy makers but we’re focused on being politicians and our careers.  We need to be thinking long-term.  Best example is what we’ve done with the prison system.  Since the term limits law was enacted, we have been increasing sentences left and right and we have a system that is overpopulated, and the highest recidivism rate in the nation.  They’re a bigger danger when they get out,  and that’s because politicians want to say they’re tough on crime so that they can run for another office.  And they want to say that they fought to increase the penalty for something.  It’s not working for the people.  I do benefit because I get six more years.  I don’t intend to be there that long, but we need people with experience.  It reduces the total number of years, but it allows people like me to stay in the Assembly.

BRIAN LEUBITZ:  In the 2008 budget the high speed rail initiative has suffered dramatic cutbacks.  Will you restore it next election?

SPEAKER NUNEZ: The Republicans are demanding zero deficit, which has required big cutbacks.  There are some tough decisions we have to make.  The filter I’m looking at all of this through is making sure that we improve quality of life for the people of California.  You can come to three basic conclusions.  The more you borrow, the more debt you incur for infrastructure, the deeper hole you’re in because you have to pay interest on it.  So you need to take it from education, public safety or services.  You’ll find a lot of Republican votes to cut education or services, but not public safety.  I’d love to get high-speed rail, but I’m dealing with sacrificing programs for poor people to make these long-term investments.  It’s a tough issue to grapple with, and I don’t know if we can do high-speed rail in the next election.

So I have a question…

(Today’s NYT calls for impeachment of Abu Gonzales if he doesn’t appoint a special prosecutor. So, why didn’t the Democratic Party of California do the same a few weeks ago exactly? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

and it goes out to the Resolutions Committee and anyone else that may have voted against Bob Silver’s amendment to resubstitute the word “impeachment” into the watered-down “immediate resignation” resolution about Attorney General Gonzales that the Committee passed on my behalf at the last e-board.

The question is…now that Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into Gonazales’ overt perjury, and even RedState.com’s Pejman Yousefzadeh is calling for Gonzo’s removal…

Do you still think that calling for the impeachment of Gonzales is not pragmatic, would create “bad media”, and make us seem too radical?

Just checking.

CA-42: A netroots Campaign–Politics the way it should be.

(This is a cross-post of my diary diary about Ron on DailyKos.)

In case you haven’t yet seen the news, a Kossack is running for Congress.  His name is Ron Shepston, and he’s running in California’s 42nd district against one of the most corrupt Republicans in Congress.  And did I mention–his campaign manager is also a Kossack.

Now you know who the candidate is–but today, on Blogosphere Day, I wanted to share with you some thoughts I had about how all this started, where it’s going, and what it might even mean for the future of our political system.

Follow me below.

Previous diaries in the CA-42 campaign rollout series:
7/15: thereisnospoon’s CA-42: A Kossack is running for Congress
7/16: atdnext’s CA-42: The Case Against Dirty Gary Miller
7/17: Major Danby’s CA-42: I’m managing a netroots U.S. House campaign
7/18: CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream’s CA-42: Hi, I’m Ron Shepston and I’m running for Congress

If you’ve been following all this exciting news, you’re probably familiar with a lot of the storyline.  Ron Shepston’s candidacy is the first netroots-grown federal candidacy, and follows in the footsteps of pioneers such as Brian Keeler and others in actually trying to get involved, win elections, and be the change that we want to see.  But to me, the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign means so much more to me than whether the people involved–from the candidates on down to the supporters–just happen to go online to post on a blog.  To me, it’s about restoring the way democracy should work in this country.  I’ve been involved since the campaign as it currently stands was no more than a twinkle in the eye of someone who half-jokingly said, “hey, you should run.”  And along the way, I just happen to have borne witness to something I believe is truly extraordinary.

I was fortunate enough to be present, along with my brother thereisnospoon, at the event that gave rise to what is now the Ron Shepston for Congress campaign.  And like he said, it all began with a discussion of what will soon, I hope, become the first thing I hope everyone thinks about when they hear the name “Gary Miller”: the “why won’t you buy my property” video put out by the DCCC; and then of how to pursue the 50-state strategy successfully, if how we as Democrats had to make sure that Gary Miller didn’t just get a free pass–and it just so happened that someone by the name of Ron Shepston (who, if you will pardon the pun on his handle, was certainly incensed but still hoping for better) happened to be an unwilling constituent of the aforementioned Gary Miller.

Once Ron had decided to run, the next phase of discussion turned to something elementary: a discussion of problems, and ideas about what to do to fix them.  From national issues such as Iraq and tax policy to more local issues such as freeways and transportation, over the course of the next several months, we as citizens actually discussed issues.  No consultants–not yet, anyway.  Just discussing with people in the district–the potential volunteers, the activists, or the regulars at the newly formed Drinking Liberally in Rancho Santa Marguerita and Santa Ana–what their issues are, and what they’d like to see done.

And as I’ve been observing the Ron Shepston campaign, this is the one thing that stands out to me.  The people discussing the issues internally in the campaign are regular citizens who care enough to have a debate about what’s going wrong and what we can do to set it right.  To me, it doesn’t honestly matter where all these regular citizens met each other and discovered their mutual interest in political discourse and ideation; DailyKos is wonderful for that sort of thing, but if everyone had happened to meet at a meatspace town hall rather than a virtual town hall, the idea would have been the same–it just wouldn’t have given us the feeling of something so amazing as the connections produced by the blogosphere.

It’s not that we don’t discuss strategy.  We do.  Every campaign has to if it wants to have a chance to succeed.  But even then, our strategies (I could tell you what they are but then I’d have to kill you) have been formulated over the past several months the same way our platform is–by talking amongst ourselves, brainstorming, ideating, and having fun every step of the way.  You should see our meetings–I’d say we’re spending just as much time laughing as we are talking, and yet it doesn’t take away from our productivity–in fact, I’d say it enhances it.

Like I said–this is a different type of campaign.  And it’s not different because we all happen to love participating in virtual town hall sites.  It’s different because it’s a campaign by a regular citizen, for regular citizens, and run by regular citizens.  And when we decided to make our official announcement, guess where we made it?
To the regular citizens like you who have made dreaming of such an idea possible.

I know it’s early in the campaign, but I’d say our faith in what I like to call “citizen campaigning” has been a success so far–on our announcement day, we raised over $4,300 from regular citizens like you who want to see citizen candidates rather than special interest candidates, and who want to see campaigns run by those who share their values, rather than others who may seem out of touch with the values shared by the grassroots that makes our election possible. Something is happening here — you can feel it.

Over the course of the past 6 months, I have witness the birth of a netroots campaign, an incipient grassroots campaign, and a campaign run and inspired by those who are passionate about political solutions to pressing issues.  It’s a campaign on the cutting edge of the decentralized ideology that we have favored in campaigns since “Crashing the Gate”.  It is a campaign that will put to the test the 50-state strategy, as well as what we in California call the 58-county strategy.

But you do know the only way it’ll be a fair test, right?  We need you to help us out by helping to fuel this campaign.
See, it’s my belief that a team of dedicated citizen activists ought to be able to compete with the corrupt institutionalization of the likes of Gary Miller.  It’s my belief that a candidate shouldn’t have to have a million dollars in his personal bank account to win a seat in the People’s House.

It’s my belief that we’re running our campaign in the way the founders of our government intended for it to be done.  It’s my belief that it can be successful.  And I want your help in proving me right.