What follows below the fold are George Lakoff’s remarks on the majority rule initiative from the forum this evening.

Notes on Lakoff forum

Bauman:  53% of revenue now based on personal income tax.  Used to be 23% when Prop 13 passed.

Vehicle license fee: $6.3 billion in today’s dollars.

Cost expands, and we’re not doing anything to upend them.  As long as it takes us to give away what little of a store we have left to let us cut $700 million from the healthy families program-we have to give them ballot measures to help elect Republicans.  So the reason that we’re here today is the cure to this problem.  As long as a little minority of evil, closed-minded hateful people-as long as we allow that to happen, our state is going backwards and not forwards.

I talked to a teacher who said she had 53 students in her incoming class.  And then we wonder why 56% of children don’t graduate.  What are we doing when we have a 25% increase in class sizes?

When I get old, I’d like a few taxpayers left to pay for the services that I need.  The other side is going to do whatever they can to undermine us.  There  is only one way to beat the other side: don’t let them get away with it!  When they look in the camera and they lie, saying we have a spending problem not a revenue problem-Davis increased funding for emergency room physicians.  Arnold has rolled that back.  And we have a common sense problem.  What we’re here to do tonight is talk about common sense.

In closing, there are two lawsuits that have been filed.  After a deal had been negotiated, he took the unilateral authority to cut an additional hundreds of millions of  dollars out of the budget.  The argument is that he can do that for appropriations, but these weren’t appropriations bills.  There was a second lawsuit filed by Darrel Steinberg.  The LA County Party and the Riverside County Party have filed as amici in this case.  And the point was to point out who was hurting.  So our  law firm went out and found actual victims of these budget cuts: women who were damaged because the domestic violence shelters aren’t funded.  People with AIDS who lost care.  And that has received confirmation from the appeals court.  The people and children and seniors of California deserve better.

SUSIE:

We need to all come together in this state if we’re going to get an initiative to pass.  And I want to thank Deana, one of the vice-presidents of the CA Majority Rule PAC.

GEORGE LAKOFF:

I got into this last spring when Lonnie Hancock invited me to speak to a group of State Senators.  And I said, what’s the problem, you’re the majority!  And they said they don’t have any power.  And they explained the whole 2/3rds rule, and how the leadership has to work with them because we want to lose as little as possible.

And I asked, why aren’t you in every assembly district explaining this problem?  It’s about schools, healthcare, everything, and there’s no answer.  I went back and said that there’s something really wrong.  Its name is democracy.  People tend to think that a 2/3rds majority is more Democratic than a simple majority because it’s more people.  But it’s actually not-because it allows one third plus one to govern.  And we’ve seen this again and again as Eric said and that’s why this state is dysfunctional.  And another thing that makes me ill is this:  The people of this state don’t want to fund education or healthcare.  That’s what they say, but it’s ridiculous.  We have a majority of Dem legislators and the people voted for them.  It’s absurd to say that the people don’t want these things.

If you think about the issue, it’s simple: it’s Democracy.  Which is more Democratic?  Majority rule, or minority rule?  You knew the answer from the 3rd grade on.  Even Republicans know the answer but they don’t like to.  We know there will be a blowback if we try to change things, but the hardest blowback is coming from our side.  The reason that Loni Hancock invited me was that there was a  poll done by a progressive organization, and it asked the wrong question.

This is my business.  Studying language and the framing behind language.  If someone presented you with the poll question: would you rather have more taxes and higher services, or fewer taxes and less services.  Obviously, it went with the latter.  And the legislature concluded that they shouldn’t put anything about taxes on the 2010 ballot.  Why do they think that?  Because they think that polls are objective, and that language just floats out there.  They’re wrong.  Language is not neutral.  There’s a truth here that that language hides.  It’s the truth that we don’t have Democracy in this state.  We have minority rule.

Framing is about telling truth so people understand it.  When people use the word “supermajority” they help the other side.  The Democratic Party ought to love this because it says that the problem has been Republicans.  And I read in the newspapers constantly that the Democrats run the legislature.  The legislature is actually run by Republicans in a minority rule state.  Never let any newspaper get by with that.  If you see it, flood them immediately.  And that’s one of the things about talking for a year or more about this issue.

The issue isn’t taxes.  It’s democracy.  If the majority wants no taxes and to close schools let them do it.  But the majority of Californians aren’t like that, and that’s the lie.  The majority are perfectly reasonable and sensible if you tell them the truth.  So what I did was simple.  I sent in a ballot proposal for 2010.  I had never done it before, but it’s not that hard.

My ballot proposal is  one sentence long:  14 words.  “all legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.”  In case there’s any vagueness there, the form is sent to the attorney general, and it says, “what changes are you making in the Constitution.  And there are two changes.  2/3rds becomes majority in two places.  And our lawyer looked at it.  And we’ll put another clause in there that says that if it contradicts anything else, this takes precedence.  It’s one page.  One sentence.  And any Democrat can run on that because it says that conservative Republicans have been our problem.

There’s going to be a blowback and you know what it is.  “They’re gonna raise your taxes.”  And the answer is that it’s not about that.  It’s about whether the majority or minority rule.  And we have this nutty thing called ballot measures.  You can pass one with a majority even about a 2/3rds rule.

What is a government in a democracy about?  Two things.  Two moral missions.  Protection and empowerment.  Worker protections, consumer, environmental protection.  Healthcare.  Protection of a better life.  Pregnant women without the resources for prenatal care who have to wait 6 months to get anything at all.  Then there are other things.  Food safety.  Who’s monitoring that?  All kinds of things fall under that.  And nobody who’s a Republican ever wants to talk about empowerment, but it’s what allows anybody to live a civilized life.  Roads, bridges-you’re empowered by that.  You didn’t build those highways or freeways, but you’re empowered by the state.  You hire people who have an education.  But they got trained, and you didn’t do that.   You have a computer.  And who figured out computers?  Two guys from UC Berkeley.  Who’s the chief scientist at Google?  Trained by UC Berkeley.

If you have a cell phone, it works because certain chips were developed by UC San Diego.  If you do any of those things, you’re being empowered by the state.  You can’t make a dime in this state if you weren’t empowered by the state government.  That’s what this is about.

People say that this is a poor state.  This is the seventh largest economy in the world.  If this were a country, it would be one of the richest.  But it’s being run like a third-world country.  And the top 1% now gets a quarter of the income.  It didn’t used to be that way.  Used to be about 9% or so.  And now it’s way up there.  And people say that it’s horrible that a few hundred thousand people pay 50% of taxes.  Have you ever thought about how much of the assets they own?

Prop 13 passed because little old ladies were paying taxes that were too high, and they needed some help.  Not a crazy argument, but it applied to corporations who don’t sell their property very often, because corporations count as people.  If you apply that to corporations, then your budget revenue is solved.  And how do you change that?

You’d have to change a definition to determine who a new owner is.  And there has been a proposal made.  If 2% of the stockholders of the corporation change, then you have a new owner.  New assessment.  So this is a legislative matter.  This is something that should be discussed in a democracy.  It should be out there for open discussion and vote.  So what keeps this from happening?  Why is it the case that when I suggested to the state senators that they be out working and talking, that the assembly people should be, they said, 1) the Republicans are keeping us busy-and I suggested that since they’ve made all the deals, you just say, one more thing and we go back on all deals.  And they said that you couldn’t do that because people would starve.  And I said, maybe the papers would then notice that we have minority rule.  Why is it that in Republican districts where schools are just as bad, so is healthcare, and wives are just as battered-why can they get away with it?  Because Republicans have a better communication strategy, everywhere.  They have a system.  They have think tanks at local, state and national levels.  Lots of them, well funded, about half a billion a year.  And the Democrats know this.  They have training institutes that train tens of thousands of conservatives a year to think and talk conservative.  They’re trained starting at age 15 in summer camps.  They’re out there by the hundreds of thousands in every district.  They have a booking agency that books these people on radio and TV.

They have these folks in business organizations, chambers of commerce, rotary clubs.  Why don’t Democrats have that?  And one more thing:  They know how to frame things well.  Several reasons for this:  They start with an understanding of conservatism, and they apply it.  Second, they have people doing framing like Frank Luntz.  They’re not dopes.  He gave us the whole government takeover thing.  So why is it that Democratic donors-we could do that, by the way.  We can have training institutes and speakers.  And for this issue,  we will.  We’ll have a speaker’s bureau, training materials-we want to recruit speakers in every district.  Two kinds: people who will be willing to be booked on radio and TV, but casual  speakers as well who will talk to their friends as well who will know what to say to tell the truth effectively.  Not to lie, ever.  That’s what this is about.  We can begin with this issue:  the structuring of a communications system that we need anyway.  And if any issue is it, this is the place to start.

Now, this is all crucial.  You’re going to get a lot of blowback on this, and the first place is from the people who read those bad polls.  So we’re gonna need a poll.  We’ve got a pollster ready to go.  We’re gonna need to raise $30,000.  That’s not a lot of money.  Organizations can chip in.  We have donor forms going around right now.  We need $30,000 from your organizations.  It’s not huge.  But we need to have the poll all ready to go.  We need to have this all over the place.  Today I have a piece on the Huffington Post.  Susie will list the URL, but you can go to HuffPo, search for my name, and find it.  And it will rise to the top of the Huffington Post.  That means the people in the media will read it.

Now, they’ll say that we’re gonna raise your taxes.  And you’ll say that this is about Democracy.  Majority rule, doing what the majority wants.  The voters are the majority.  If they don’t like taxes, then they won’t vote for them.  And if they’ll do, then they will.

Now, they took a poll on 55%.  And they said that people would be in favor, and they didn’t ask about majority.  Everybody knows about 50%.  Have you ever took part in an election where you needed 55%?  So we need to train people to speak.  On radio and TV, or just casually.  And we need volunteers to do all of those things.  We need a movement that says that government is about protection and empowerment?  Barack Obama has explained that better than anyone else.  And nobody in the press has ever covered it.  He says it over and over again.  Democracy is based on empathy.  Caring about other people.  He was interviewed on Anderson Cooper and asked about his definition of patriotism, and he said that it begins with people caring about each other.  That’s why we have the principles we do.  His best speech on this was his father’s day speech in 2008: if you’re going to be a good parent, you need to be responsible for yourself and others.  You need to empathize and care, and teach your children empathy.  Otherwise, you’ll have a generation of people that don’t care about each other.  And you need an ethic of excellence.  If you’re going to make society better, you need to make yourself better.  They work in a family and they work in a nation.  And that’s what Democracy is about.  And from that you get protection and empowerment as the moral missions of government.  Everyone understands that as the basis of democracy.  When was the last time you heard a Democratic candidate say anything like that?

But it can be said.  People can explain protection and empowerment in 30 seconds.  This is a crucial idea that has to be out there.  This is about what government is in a democracy.  If you’re going to talk about that, and they say that they don’t like government, and that government is inefficient, how does that compare with health insurance companies?

A lot of people are inefficient in this country, and government is often more efficient than corporations.  But what happens if you get rid of parts of government?  A very good example is the Bush administration, where the food and drug administration had its testing regulators for prescription drugs  cut.  What that meant is that the companies had to be responsible for testing their own.  And then you got  Fen-phen, Celebrex, Vioxx, and all of those.  They lied.  They fudged the tests because they were in charge.  And who were they accountable for?  Their shareholders.  When you cut government, you don’t get rid of government, you just shift it to corporations.  And so do you want it accountable to the people, or to profits?  There’s a certain cartoon in Sunday papers that you’ve seen.  Dilbert.  And it’s for real, and there’s a reason it exists.

Anyone can get out there and tell truths effectively and powerfully.  This state is dysfunctional because it is not democratic.  And we will fix it by restoring Democracy.

Thank you.

Q: What about the message that restoring majority rule will help us streamline our tax system?

A: Minority rule just makes it worse.  This is very important to understand:  Nobody wants to get up and say something that hasn’t been said a hundred times before.  You don’t want to sound impractical.  You want to say what people already think.

Q.  Can you talk about the responses that are geared toward the “check  the majority”-that the minority can keep a check on the majority?  That seems to be an effective countermessage.

When you elect a president, do you want a check on that?  Governor?  Senators?  That’s not what a Democracy is about.  There are cases when you want to do that, and that’s deep constitutional issues.

Re: walkouts.  There were 5000 people in Sproul plaza in Berkeley, not sure how many in UCLA.  But the UC has millions of Alumni.  I’m trying to get the UC Alumni association to get speakers on behalf of overturning this.  I don’t know if that will  work, or what the legalities of the association are.  But I will be here three weeks from tomorrow speaking to the LA chapter of the Berkeley alumni, and the week after it’ll be the chapter up north.  They’re in positions of authority and they can be great speakers.  And that’s another place that we can go and should go.

We’re powerful.  We have a majority of voters who voted for Democrats.  And if you’re afraid it will lose, what happens if it doesn’t even try.  Are you going to decide to lose or take a chance on winning?

Q. Robin Podolsky from Horizon institute.  We hear on TV and in the paper all the time: the legislature’s popularity is even lower than the governor’s.  It would be good to have some data to confound that.  And we hear that both sides can’t agree.  And will they be bipartisan and compromise or no?

A: Well, they’re the nonpartisan guys who aren’t going along with democracy because there’s a law that allows them to do it, and we won’t stand for it any more.

And it may be true that the legislature is less popular, and that’s what the idea of minority rule allows us to do.  Gridlock is the  result of minority rule.  That’s what they’ve given us.  They refuse to accept anything that the majority of the people of this state want unless they get their way.  The idea of minority rule allows us to get that idea reported on.  Every year I talk to the first year journalism grad students at UC Berkeley and instruct them on framing.  And every time somebody says that it’s the opposite of what you’re being taught.  But tax relief and government takeover-that’s not objective language.  What’s happened is that people from conservatism who are trained in marketing have put these ideas in there.

People in college have learned enlightenment reason.  And it has the following properties.  The first idea is that you’re aware of all the reasoning you do.  It’s conscious.  But decisions are 98% unconscious, and every marketer knows it.  It also says that to be rational is to be logical.  I know all about symbolic logic, and people don’t reason by symbolic logic.  They reason in terms of frames, metaphors and cultural  narratives.  We have all the evidence we need from cognitive science and neuroscience.

If you get brain damage that leaves you unable to feel emotion, you don’t become rational.  You don’t know what to  want.  You can’t make decisions.  You must be emotional to be able to make decisions, and framing is about emotions.  Real rationality has to do with frames, metaphors and emotions.  Every single word is defined relative to a frame.  People think that reason can fit the world directly.  And that’s impossible if you think with a brain.  And it was designed by evolution to run a body.  And you have to go through the body and what the neural system will allow.  And that’s why framing is important.  It’s not spin.  You can’t say a word without invoking a frame unconsciously, physically in your brain.

Q: You put a lot of importance on the poll.  Would you explain more about it?

A: The idea of the poll is a framing poll.  It asks the question, what would happen if people answered questions about what would happen if people think in terms of majority vs.. minority rule?  If you adequately frame this, what would happen?  So you want to ask simple questions: what’s more democratic: majority rule or minority rule.  Given the fact that 2/3rds means 1/3rd veto, do you think that’s acceptable in a democracy.  And would you vote  for something with that one sentence.

And then you give some of the usual arguments on the other side.  And then you give the answers: the representatives have to do what their constituents want them to do.  Do you accept this as an answer.  Those are the things we want to ask.

Q: What about decreases?

A: Increases and decreases.  Anything about the budget.

A: Right now, we have rule by a conservative Republican minority, and that’s a disaster.  It’s hurting other minorities.  And who are the people that are hurt most?  Most minorities themselves who are the most victimized.  There is a difference between a legislative minority, and the minorities who are guaranteed their rights.  I don’t know if that can get across, but your job is to speak to that issue in terms that makes sense to your audience.  You have to find out where your people are and talk to them there.  That’s what framing is.  You have to have a feel for who you’re talking to.  And you do, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked.

Q: Lilly Laskin from the Westside Club.  I’m troubled by how we always take polls before we ask questions.  Let’s say the public is way in favor of something, but it changes before the vote.  I was wondering if you could tell us about that.

A: This is part of being sophisticated.  We know that there will be a blowback.  We have to have in place a communications system and enough money to have our own ads.  And if we don’t organize enough we lose.  This is a matter of the people of this state taking charge of the state.  If the people of the state don’t want to take charge the other guys will win.  That’s true.  The ads matter.  They’ll lie, cheat, use outrageous frames.  And we have to prepare in advance for it.  It’s very important to get out in front of it and to get as many organizations and donors ready to go to get the million signatures.  And you get those million signatures by getting a communication system in place.  It’s not just standing at the market.  It’s having the people at the market say something.  If we lose on this, we lose on everything.  But we’ve already lost on it and it’ll get worse unless we win.

Q: Sue Broidy: I want to work on this before I finally go off into the sunset.  But I’m very excited and want to do what I can.  We did an unscientific poll in the Ojai valley and want to dislodge Tony Strickland.  And we decided we would poll the Ojai Valley Democrats and asked if they would support a recall, and they said no, let him be voted out.  But when we ask them, do you understand what he’s done to us with the 2/3rds, they said yes.  And yes, they would support an initiative that changes that.  I was cheered by that, and everyone should be doing that from now on.

A: People say, do we dare to hope?  Somebody just won the presidency that way.

Q: How do you counter the great loaded word “patriot”?

A: I liked the way-let me tell you the suggestions over the years.  Obama’s answer: patriotism is people caring about their countrymen.  I had different name from the public option.  I proposed calling it the American plan.  Couldn’t convince the administration, but I tried.  But that’s why it’s so important to go for Democracy.  This is a patriotic bill.  Hello patriots, vote for democracy and end minority rule.  Get your flags out there!  Wear two of them!  Two flags, not one.  We’re more patriotic.  Because we want majority rule, not minority rule.  But yes, we have to reclaim patriotism, and it’s not just about this bill, it’s about  everything.

Q: Member of the union where we are.  City of Walnut resident.  We had one person earlier who said that we need a majority check regarding race and other issue.  And what won the victory is when people had to acknowledge what the constitution guarantees.  Same thing with gay marriage.  So, what you said earlier about making a statement-it oftentimes only takes Republicans a second to say what they want, with soundbites as short as theirs.  Do you believe in democracy or don’t you?

A: And more than that, the question of which soundbites work is an empirical question.  I can’t tell  you what will work, though I think that democracy and majority rule will work.  But we have to test it.  And you test it after you put it out there.  The other guys put it out there for long enough that it’s in people’s brains.  The reason repetition works is a basic fact about your brain.  When your neural system gets activated, it gets stronger.  That’s physics.  You get a magnetic field going across the synapses.  But they don’t know that.  They just know that repetition does it.

Q: I’m on the executive board of the SM Democratic club.  A few months ago, John Burton answered my question in front  of a lot of people about a few essential reforms, including 2/3rds, and he was very enthusiastic about that.  And he has now backtracked on that.  How are we going to do this if the new leadership is not going to do this?

A: Burton wouldn’t talk to me for more than a minute.  He just said that he saw the polls, and it said 55% on budget and nothing on taxes.  How many of you were at the state convention?  You voted on a resolution about this.  How did that resolution come before you?  The resolutions committee.  And that was the point.  We got the resolutions committee to do it and got a standing ovation.  The rank and file Democrats know it’s the right thing to do and they have to tell their leaders.  So how do you change this?  You have to have a poll, but you have to have pressure.  The major donors have to call Burton and say, if you want any money from me, you get behind this.  And he has to hear that from donor after donor and organization after organization.  We have to win in our own party first.  I think John Burton is a good person, same with Bass and Steinberg.  It’s the good people that we have to win over first.

Q: Cal State LA.  How does the 2/3rds vote affect higher education?  Have you spoken with California Forward?

A: Just budget.  Not taxes.  Yes, California Forward is not supporting this, because they’ve read the poll.  Yet.  But if we don’t get this thing organized it won’t go anywhere.  This isn’t about taxes.  It’s about making a functional government.  We now have a functional anti-Democratic government.  It’s not about taxes.  If they make it about taxes, we’ll lose.

Q: Dave Sonneborn.  You’re great.  Really, I was going to ask about the questions that have already been asked, about how we win our own party.  So, at this point, what I would ask is fairly trivial.  I was wondering what has happened with the group of legislators that you started out with?  Any interactions since?

A: They gave up.  A few of them stayed there.  Many of them because they have ambitions in rising within the state.  Some because they were new, because of term limits.  But they just gave up and had to follow the leadership.  And because they gave up, I said I’m not going to.

Well, I got the main part of my prediction correct regarding the outcome of the 2nd Council District race.  The other…not so much.

With full results in:

Krekorian: 4,929 (34.1%)

Essel: 4,104 (28.39%)

Galatzan: 1,874 (12.94)

Upshot: we’ll have a runoff election on December between Paul Krekorian and Chris Essel, and I’m expecting Krekorian’s first-place finish (with room to spare) to encourage people to start considering the possibility of an open seat in the 43rd a little more strongly.  But as students of politics, what can we learn?

First, election day is no longer election day.  For the first time that I can remember in a campaign that wasn’t mail-only, more ballots were cast via absentee than in person.  Total turnout in this election was 11.74%, a total of 14,525 ballots.  And of those, 54.64% were cast by absentee.

With less than half the votes being cast on election day, the importance of GOTV weekend field becomes significantly diminished.  Instead, the election seems to become more about who can raise the early money and generate the early field operation to reach the absentee voters–a fact which Judy Chu made abundantly clear on May 19th.

Just like Chu did in May, Krekorian seems to have done that here.  While Krekorian finished up election day with a hair over 34% of the vote, he got over 39% of the absentee vote (you’ll have to trust me on that because that data isn’t available online right now and I didn’t cache it).  Galatzan, on the other hand, gained a couple of points, while Essel stayed in roughly the same place.

I think it’s about time for campaigns in special elections like this to realize that absentee ballot drop week is the new GOTV weekend. In CA-32, fully a quarter of the ballots were cast by absentee.  That seemed high at the time.  Now it’s over half in this election.  People just aren’t going to the polls any more for special elections, and that needs to be taken into account by any campaign that’s worth its salt.

Now, we have more than two months of campaigning left, but my initial prognostication says that Krekorian will win this in December.  First, turnout will be even lower than before, increasing the importance of the absentees.  Second, the election will be in December, which means that it could be cold or rainy, further depressing turnout in an electorate that skews older.  It wouldn’t surprise me to see 60% of the ballots cast in the runoff to come from absentees.

One last note:  Eric Hacopian is probably the hottest mail consultant in the state right now.  Fresh from engineering Emmanuel Pleitez’ head-turning campaign in CA-32, Hacopian turns around and gives Krekorian a handy victory in the 2nd Council District primary.  Nice going.

Voters in the Los Angeles area have seen quite a few elections this year.  We had our regularly scheduled municipal elections this Spring, as well as a municipal general in certain races that had to go to a runoff.  Along the way, we’ve had a special primary and a special general to fill the Senate seat in SD-26 that was vacated by Mark Ridley-Thomas’ ascent to the Board of Supervisors.  That election was won by Assemblyman Curren Price, whose seat in AD-51 was then taken by Steve Bradford in yet another special election (thankfully, he got 51% in the primary ballot, avoiding a runoff and getting a new Assemblyman as quickly as possible).  In between all of that, we had the May 19th special election, as well as the special Congressional election in CA-32 to fill the vacancy created by Hilda Solis’ confirmation as Secretary of Labor.

And now, residents of Los Angeles are on to their final special election of the year–though maybe not the cycle.  Today, voters in certain communities in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles will decide who they want representing them on the City Council, as their former Councilmember Wendy Greuel was elected as City Controller.

And believe it or not, this race has statewide implications.  As you can see from the fundraising numbers, there are three top-tier candidates in the race: Chris(tine) Essel, who is a former Paramount Studios executive turned community activist; Tamar Galatzan, who represents a school board district that overlaps substantially with the Council District; and Assemblymember Paul Krekorian from AD-43, about 20% of the population of which are also residents of Council District 2.  If Krekorian makes it through to the primary and then wins on the 8th, we’ll have a special election next year to fill AD-43, which will be vacant until then (leaving us with one less seat in the Assembly until then).

It is widely expected that there will be a runoff, as the bulk of the votes in this low-turnout election will be split between these three candidates, and there are 7 other candidates in the race that will siphon off a significant number of ballots among them–the runoff will take place September 8th.

Being as objective as I can (I am the political director of an organization that has endorsed Tamar Galatzan), here are the strengths and weaknesses (as I see them) of each candidate:

Chris Essel:  Essel has a lot of money, but not a lot of name recognition.  She has never held elected office, which can be (and has been) a good marketing point, but also means that the 4X4 voters who will decide this election will not be as familiar with her as with the other candidates.  Essel has gotten the endorsement of the Los Angeles Times, and has been able to pay for quite a bit of literature, based on conversations I’ve had with contacts in other campaigns, as well as a TV spot.  Essel also has the endorsement of the former Councilmember, Wendy Greuel.  On the downside, I’ve heard that Essel doesn’t have all that strong a volunteer base and has been having to use paid canvassers.

Paul Krekorian:  Krekorian has a lot of things going for him.  He is well known to a significant section of the district, has good fundraising to pay for mailers and such and has some good endorsements, including the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.  On the downside, the State Assembly isn’t the most popular body in the country right now.  In addition, Krekorian has been attacked by other campaigns for not being a resident of the district until recently–not that that line of attack was successful for those seeking to stop Garamendi from getting the nomination in CD-10, but perhaps a City Council race will feature a different dynamic.

Tamar Galatzan:  Galatzan is weaker in fundraising than the other candidates, but has some advantages.  First, she might have better name recognition than the other candidates because more residents of the district have voted for her than for anyone else, given the extensive overlap between her school board district and Council District 2.  She also has the endorsement of the L.A. Daily News and one of the local community papers.  From what I’ve seen and heard, both Galatzan and Krekorian have had a good ground game so far, and Galatzan has been doing well in recent media appearances–even according to sources I’ve mentioned previously who have no love for her or her campaign.  On the downside, less money means less mail, which is the usual way one wins races like this.

So who wins?  Well, the real question is, which two of the three is going to go to the runoff, given the fact that it will be a major shock if one of the lesser seven somehow manages to pull it off without a substantial campaign.  My prediction?

Krekorian in first, with Galatzan barely beating Essel for slot 2.  I do think that a good field campaign, volunteer operation, and name recognition from previous campaigns matter, especially when the electorate consists of the most politically active and savvy voters.  In my heart, I would also like to believe that elections can’t be won with a rolodex, even at the local level.

I’ll be posting an open thread with the results soon after they close.

Note: I’m the political director of an organization that has endorsed Tamar Galatzan in her race for Council District 2 in Los Angeles.  The election is this upcoming Tuesday.

It’s a damn shame that Mayor Sam is one of the best-read blogs in Los Angeles politics.  First and foremost, many of its posters (unlike our frontpage Caliticians, who have decided to disclose their identities) remain anonymous.  Now, as someone who blogged anonymously for years before feeling comfortable disclosing my real name, occupation and other aspects of my identity, it would be hypocritical of me if that were the sole source of my complaint.  Rather, Mayor Sam’s real problem is that the frontpage posters, whoever they are, peddle conspiracy after conspiracy theory about power politics in Los Angeles.  It was Mayor Sam’s posters, after all, who took Eric Hacopian’s work in CA-32 as evidence that Emanuel Pleitez was doing Mayor Villaraigosa’s bidding just to punish Gil Cedillo).

It’s one thing when such lies and distortions happen to people you don’t know.  But when your real-life friends start popping up in posts like this, it requires some pushback.

As background, the relationship between current School Board Member and CD-2 candidate Tamar Galatzan and Mayor Villaraigosa has been a point of issue in a campaign centered around certain portions of the San Fernando Valley where the Mayor is not very popular.  Tamar Galatzan was first elected to her School Board seat in the 2007 municipals with significant aid from Villaraigosa’s so-called “Partnership for Better Schools”–a campaign account he set up to elect allies to the school board.

Since then, however, Galatzan has apparently had a falling-out of sorts with the Mayor (and who hasn’t?).  But it appears that one of the chief tactics of whoever on Mayor Sam seems to have such a vested interested in attacking Galatzan is to try to do his (her?) best to link Galatzan with the mayor.  And this is where it gets a little personal.

In the first post by this “Higby” individual, it is mentioned that many members of Galatzan’s staff used to supposedly work for the Mayor, including Policy Director Pamela Burga.  Now, Pam has been a good friend of mine for a couple of years, and has devoted her life to educational equity.  Her supposed “work for the mayor”?  Working for the Villaraigosa-funded Partnership for Better Schools” for a few months before joining Galatzan’s staff in 2007, where she has worked ever since.  She didn’t deserve to be brought into this, much less lied about.

But the idiot is not done.  In yet another post on the same issue, this same duplicitous hack goes even further, except this time he can’t even get the names right.

Haley Green is has been paid $2,000 to date for consulting work by the then Galatzan. Previously Green was on the payroll of Villaraigosa’s Partnership for Better Schools, the Mayor’s political committee that helped to elect Galatzan to the School Board with a $2 million boost.

Galatzan’s day to day aide Devin Orisri is a former employee of the Mayor’s Partnership for Better schools. Her Policy Director Pamela Burga is another former employee of the Mayor.

Besides the aforementioned Pamela, Hayley Greene and Devin Osiri are also friends of mine from the local Young Democrat clubs.  Devin, age 26, has worked on numerous campaigns–before joining Galatzan’s team, he was also an aide to Ron Galperin, who was a candidate for Council District 5.  Hardly what I’d call loyalty to the head honcho.  And yes, a couple of years ago in 2007, he also worked for Tamar’s campaign–but the checks came from the Partnership.

But it’s with Hayley that this gets the most ridiculous.  Hayley Greene, the so-called “consultant” and mayoral loyalist, is a 20-year-old who is about to enter her junior year of college.  She is helping with volunteer coordination as a summer job.  And yes, she helped with the 2007 campaign as a high-school student.

When all is said and done, this post isn’t about supporting or defending Tamar Galatzan or trying to prove anything one way or the other about her connections to Mayor Villaraigosa, which, in whatever capacity they exist, would exist at levels far higher than the individuals mentioned here.  I cite this not only to defend my friends, who have no business being used as political footballs by anonymous insiders trying to spread crap about candidates who are running against the one that particular insider is supporting (how else, after all, does one come by such specific information about a high-school coordinator?) but also as a signal that the Los Angeles area needs an honest progressive blogosphere that will do better coverage of our local races, since most of the important ones are Dem against Dem primaries and we deserve to have an honest media that can follow these races and cover them with honest efficiency.

That’s a question that Brian Bilbray’s Democratic challengers should be asking.  Congressman Joe Wilson–who, in an erroneous and indecorous fit of pique, screamed “You Lie!” during Obama’s joint session of Congress–really likes to spread the cash around under the name of the Carolina Majority PAC–which he controls.

The FEC filings show that Joe Wilson’s PAC has an extensive list of beneficiaries, but there’s one that stands out: in the 2006 cycle, the Carolina Majority PAC donated a cool $5,000 to the re-election campaign of Brian Bilbray.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that most people in North San Diego County wouldn’t take political money from someone who loves the confederate flag and is a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  Hell, when George Allen decided he wanted to play that game, he packed up from SoCal and brought his cowboy boots and confederate flag pin to Charlottesville.

So the question for Brian Bilbray is, does he support confederate South Carolina values of Congressman Joe Wilson?  If he doesn’t, he should repay that $5,000, especially in light of Wilson’s outburst at our (coincidentally, I presume?) mixed-race President.  If he does, though, he has no business being a Congressman from Southern California.

CYD and the USC Young Dems are hosting a forum on the Attorney General’s race this Sunday, to be held at the Leavey Library on the USC campus this Sunday at 1:45.  All the candidates except Kamala Harris will be in attendance.

The organizers have asked me to solicit questions for the candidates from the Calitics community.  If you have a question you’d like to be considered for consideration, please send them to CYD Deputy Political Director Charlie Carnow at ccarnow at youngdems.org.

CDP inside baseball time.

I made a post earlier about the CDP Legislative Action Committee that I refuse to link to because it was that shoddy.  Essentially, the piece implied that there was a subcommittee meeting in Sacramento this upcoming Tuesday because John Hanna was unhappy with the way the Committee currently functions.

That’s not at all true, and I apologize for the implication.  After further discussions with more of the people involved, I have come to realize that there are plenty of issues with the Legislative Action committee as it currently stands that need resolution, including, but not limited to:

Message consistency.  The Party already has two policy committees–platform and resolutions.  Should the Legislative Action committee be a third policy committee, or a legislative action “branch” of the other policy committees?  Should the Legislative Action committee only support bills for which it can find a precedent for party support in a resolution or in the Party Platform?

What types of bills?  Should the committee consider federal, state and local bills, or just state bills?

Gut-and-amend.  If the committee supports a bill that then gets gutted and amended in a legislative session, how can the Party’s support of the bill be rescinded?

Propositions.  Should the LAEOC consider ballot measures?  Technically, props are legislation, but currently those decisions are handled by the Resolutions Committee.  There’s some inconsistency there.

Those are some of the key issues, though there are plenty of other logistical issues involved as well–and in this, we haven’t even discussed the “action” portion of the Legislative Action Committee’s responsibility.  Bear in mind that I still stand by everything I wrote about John Hanna’s solution to these problems–his emails do speak for themselves, after all–but it was severely wrong of me to imply that that’s the only reason the Rules Committee was meeting on this topic.

If it were up to me, the Legislative Action committee would convene to decide a slate of key California bills (including propositions) the Party should support, in conjunction with the Resolutions and Rules Committee, and should then be tasked with developing a Legislative Action Plan to promote the passage of those bills.  If any of these bills were to be substantially gutted and amended, the Chair would have the discretion to rescind the Party’s support.

Maybe I’ll submit that as written testimony–even though I’m not any committees any more.

In my previous post about the Wally Herger (R-Redding) incident wherein he praised a self-described “right-wing terrorist” as a “great American”, I lamented that there was no good video to really put the incident in perspective.

Fortunately, the CDP has corrected that: they’ve found the full video.  I got this from the CDP communications team just a little bit ago.  Enjoy.  You know, it’s sad.  Congressman Herger spends the entire time watching the guy rant with a wry smile.  And given the fact that most of the crowd appears to be terrorist sympathizers, there’s nothing he can really do without incurring the wrath of his constituency.  Just watch as Congressman Herger–who no longer deserves that title, if he ever did–chooses demagoguery over loyalty to American values and ideals:

Pathetic.

Incidentally–if you’re interested in helping the CDP publicize Wally Herger’s despicable actions to his constituents, just click here.

When I was at the aforementioned CDP training in Ventura over the weekend, the attendees were asked by a show of hands how they found out about the training: friends, emails, their local club, County Committees, etc.  Lastly was…the CDP website.  And the only hand that went up was mine.  Instant political geek cred right there.

So when I checked the CDP website recently again and saw this item, it made me a little curious.  It’s innocuous enough: establishing a set of guidelines on the part of the Rules Committee for the Legislative Action and Equal Opportunity committee (henceforth (LAEO).

I asked sources (an honest blogger doesn’t reveal sources, so don’t ask) what this may be about, since it isn’t something that happens all that often regarding these committees–and I got more than I bargained for.

See it below the fold.

This is complicated, but the bottom line is that it comes down to some people being upset that the LAEO Committee was recommending an endorsement of a bill on which the CDP hadn’t officially taken a position through its platform or resolutions committees.  And who’s upset?  John Hanna of the Resolutions Committee (who, as a Calitician, is more than welcome to weigh in here).  This is from an email I have obtained that John Hanna sent to members of the Resolutions Committee:

One of the things Inola and I would do is to look out after the Resolutions Committee’s jurisdiction. We were always sensitive not to step on various other committee’s toes. So when I saw our Chair send out an email blast about the Democratic Party’s position on Afghanistan troop withdrawal, I scratched my head because I thought we had tabled our Afghanistan resolution as a Party unity measure.  I remember the Chair of the progressive Caucus asking us to do that. Turns out the Legislative Action Committee recommended endorsement of a bill  (HR 2404) that covered the issue and it was adopted by the E-Board.  Neither the Platform nor a prior resolution had addressed this issue.

…

The immediate issue that prompts my request was the Legislative Action Committee’s recommendation to the Executive Board to pass legislation that called for an exit strategy for the United States armed forces currently in Afghanistan. The Platform is silent on the Afghanistan conflict and the Resolutions Committee has tabled — at the request of the head of the progressive Caucus — a comprehensive resolution on Afghanistan. As such there was no policy for the Legislative Action Committee to evaluate legislation coming before it.

We have two public policy committees — Platform and Resolutions. Both committees have vigorous processes to vet policy proposals and rules that require a good measure of fairness and due process.  The Resolutions Committee keeps track of prior positions so as to avoid inconsistent results or duplication.  Adding another committee to make policy recommendations to the E-Board or Convention could easily result in inconsistent positions, conflict, and a tendency for some writers of resolutions that may have a legislative component to “forum shop” or even try to get to the floor from both committees, resulting in a potential of contradictory recommendations. That is what happened in this case, and I submit this will be the modus operandi in the future.

First things first, I don’t think John Hanna’s recall of the events surrounding the tabling of the resolution on Afghanistan is fitting.  I was not at the most recent Executive Board, but I am pretty well tied in to the Progressive Caucus and its goings-on, and based on everything I heard, the resolution was tabled at the behest of Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal because the Resolutions Committee had done a wholesale gut-and-amend to the resolution, and Bernal did not want to create any conflict for Chairman Burton’s first Executive Board session.  Again, I wasn’t there, but that’s what I heard.

So what is John Hanna proposing?  Quite simply, to make the LAEO Committee subservient to other policy committees in the CDP:

To expedite that process, the Legislative Action Committee could develop — with the advise and consent of the Rules Committee — procedural rules that require the proponent of a legislative change to cite the particular platform section or resolution that sets forth the policy the legislation seeks to support. If there is no policy than the legislation would need to go to Platform or Resolutions for a policy write-up and possible return to the Legislative Action Committee.

This proposal to make the LAEO Committee subservient to the two policy committees stands in direct conflict with the Standing Rules that the LAEO has operated under since November of 2007, which I quote in part:

LAEO shall be guided by, but not limited to, the following when making recommendations on legislation:

1) Timeliness of the legislation.

2) Positions taken by the DNC, DNC Committees, DSCC, CDP resolutions and/or platform committees, and/or positions taken by CDP Caucuses that may conflict with or adhere to issues related to the legislative request.

3) Status of legislation in the CA State Legislature, U.S. Congress or other appropriate legislative body.

4) Impact DSCC may have on outcome of legislation.

5) Historical principles of the DNC and DSCC and communities it represents.

6) Factors that may affect potential substantive changes to legislation, such as whether legislation requires 2/3 majority to pass legislative body.

7) Constitutionality.

I can’t read John Hanna’s mind.  I don’t know if he was thinking this needed to happen a long time ago, or if the position specifically taken by the LAEO Committee on Afghanistan prompted this type of action.  But if you’re going to make LAEO entirely subservient to the Policy Committees, you may as well strip the “LA” element out of it–after all, it no longer has its own voice on which legislation it’s going to support, especially if John Hanna’s proposal that the LAEO Committee find the specific resolution or platform point that supports the bill is adopted.  In that case, you may as well form a separate Equal Opportunity Committee and make a Legislative Subcommittee that is comprised of people from Platform and Resolutions who can be the most familiar with current and former resolutions, as well as the impending Platform document to be ratified by the CDP during off-years.

Either let LAEO keep its independence and allow the full body or E-Board to vote on the recommendations, or kill it and make it officially subservient.  But don’t keep it as a supposedly independent committee and force it to play follow the leader.