All posts by David Dayen

Buying Groceries Is A Political Act

The 2003-2004 Southern California UFCW grocery worker’s strike and lockout was a low point in the history of the labor movement in America.  Grocery employees picketed the three major chain stores for 140 days, and despite public support, in the end they got almost nothing that they wanted, were forced to take on a burdensome two-tiered wage system (one for new employees and one for old ones), and scarcely impacted the bottom line of these huge conglomerates, who consequently turned the grocery worker job from a stable middle-class profession to the equivalent of flipping burgers.  It was disgraceful and deeply troubling that the lives of tens of thousands of workers in California were turned upside down.

Now there’s a chance to rectify it.  And you can help.

First, a little history.  In October of 2003, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) voted to strike at Von’s, a major Southern California supermarket chain owned by Safeway, Inc.  The other two big chains, Albertson’s (aka Supervalu) and Ralph’s (aka Kroger) locked out their workers within hours.  It was an example of the collusion by the big chains that characterized the whole strike.

The main issue was the health benefits of the workers, paid entirely by the company; Von’s wanted the workers to pay 50% of health costs under a new contract. They also wanted to introduce a two-tier wage system… Beginning in early October, 70,000 members of the UFCW were on strike in the region.

Since the U.S. has no national health care system, health benefits are often one of the most important parts of employee compensation. The average wage of a southern California UFCW worker is less than $12 per hour, and most workers are guaranteed only 24 hours of work per week. Many workers hold the job mainly for the health benefits.

I remember most the expressions of public support during the strike and lockout.  The chain stores were almost completely empty.  Trader Joe’s was a mob scene, walking in there was like walking into some postwar zone.  The shelves were ransacked, people were breaking open boxes faster than the stockboys could take everything out.  Indigenous people were selling crafts in the aisles, an attempted coup broke out in produce, people were spray-painting “Viva La Revolucion” on the organic broccoli. (OK, the rest of that didn’t happen.)

The point was that Southern Californians were by and large not crossing the picket line and respecting the right of the workers to bargain for fair wages.  This is especially salient because the employees were mostly bargaining for future workers, so that they could get better pay and benefits.  I remember dressing my dog up for Halloween as a striking grocery worker (and if the picture was on this computer, you’d be seeing it right now).  People really understood the issue and went out of their way to honor the strike.  Supermarkets lost roughly $2.5 billion in revenue.

And that’s when the chains started to play dirty.

On October 31, they pulled the pickets from Ralphs as a gesture of “good faith” to focus them on Von’s; the employers immediately announced that they would be sharing profits and losses during the strike – thus showing at least that the capitalists have class solidarity. The union went so far as to urge people to shop at Ralphs, where their own members were locked out. Even though the chains are all national, with total sales of $30 billion a year, the unions shyed away from any national strategy, sending a few “informational pickets” to outlets in northern California and elsewhere.

This ended up being a bad strategy because Ralph’s traffic picked up and then they SHARED THE PROFITS with the other two chain stores, keeping all three afloat and able to sustain the revenue loss.  Furthermore, Ralph’s started illegally rehiring union workers under phony Social Security numbers to keep the business going.  The company eventually had to pay a SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR FINE for “conspiracy, using a false Social Security number, identity fraud, falsifying information sent to the SSA and IRS, and failing to make proper payments to employee welfare benefits plans.”  Criminal charges for the executives are still pending.

The strike wore on and finally was settled in February 2004, as public support waned and the union ran out of money for strike pay.  It was a combination of factors that led to the awful contract they were forced to accept.  They instituted a two-tiered system that offers lower pay and benefits to new workers coming into the system.  And the health care benefits that the old workers retained were trimmed, which led to increased turnover in the business.  This blog post offers a great summation of why this strike just didn’t work as well as it could have.

A generation ago, this strike would have been a complete victory for the employees. They were able to close down their stores for several months. When those stores were regional, the employers would not have been able to sustain those kind of losses.

But the grocery industry is increasingly a national and multinational industry. The companies decided it was worth taking huge losses in one regional market if they were able to break the back of the union.

In fact, it’s paid off handsomely.

The chain stores’ main complaint was that Wal-Mart and other discounters were moving into the region, and they could not compete with stores that offer no benefits.  Three years later, Wal-Mart and other non-union grocery stores are not a factor in the Southern California market at all. 

The employers always point to Wal-Mart and Costco as major reasons they need to cut costs (and pay their grocery workers less), but Wal-Mart and Costco control less than 8% of the Southern California market, even less than they had in 2003 when the employers claimed that this competition was forcing them to reduce wages and benefits for their grocery workers.

Indeed, the three major chains have retained all of the market share they lost during the strike and then some, propelling them to record profits.  Ralph’s, Von’s and Albertson’s and their parent companies made between 2 and 3 billion dollars in profits last year.  Their CEOs took home up to $9 million in compensation.

Meanwhile, under this two-tiered system, nearly half of all grocery workers at these three chains are making less than the people who work right next to them doing the same job every day.  And practically nobody is receiving quality benefits.  Rick Wartzman spelled it out in an article in the LA Times:

The reason: These are folks who joined the Pleasanton, Calif.-based supermarket giant after the 4 1/2 -month strike and lockout that ended in February 2004. And under the contract the United Food and Commercial Workers union signed with Safeway, Kroger Co.’s Ralphs chain and Albertsons (now owned by Supervalu Inc.), new employees can’t get any health benefits for 12 to 18 months. Their families aren’t eligible to be covered for 30 months.

Going without insurance for so long “is completely stressful,” says Suzanne Demers, who went to work at Safeway’s Vons market in Redondo Beach in July 2004 and earns $10.50 an hour training others, filling in at the Starbucks station and tackling a range of additional tasks. “You just hope and pray that you don’t get sick.” […]

Right now, figures from the trust fund overseeing the health plan show that a mere fraction of lower-tier workers have been in the job long enough to qualify for coverage: just 3,312 out of 12,520 at Vons; 3,771 out of 11,474 at Albertsons; and 2,044 out of 8,438 at Ralphs.

And how long will most of these workers last before they, too, head for the exits?

This two-tiered system is churning employees of what used to be a potential career out of the business; it’s become a low-wage service job.  And it’s getting worse with every upper-tier employee that leaves and every lower-tier employee that replaces them.

The last contract for UFCW employees in SoCal expired a week ago; they granted a two-week extension and negotiations continue.  Stater Bros. and Gelson’s, two regional chains in the area, have agreed to remove the two-tiered structure.  But the big stores (the ones that can afford it) have not budged yet.  In the meantime, there’s a lot you can do to help.

The UFCW has a website at RespectWorkers.com.  There’s a petition over there that I ask all of you to sign.

By signing this petition, you are indicating your support for compensating grocery workers fairly, ensuring that they enjoy a share of the supermarkets’ billions in profits, and ending the current two-tiered wage structure by endorsing equal treatment for equal work.

Full Petition Text:

I believe Southern California’s grocery workers deserve respect, and I therefore stand with them in support of the following contract goals:

–Fair benefits and pensions for all employees

–Equal treatment for equal work

–Elimination of the two tier contract

Another way you can support the employees is by patronizing those stores which have stepped up to their responsibilities.  There is a worker-friendly store finder on their site which you can use to find the stores in Southern California which have shown respect for their employees.  If you’re not in the area, I would suggest that Safeway/Von’s, Albertson’s/Supervalu, or Kroger/Ralph’s are NOT stores that you need to reward with your business at this time, until this gets ironed out.  This can only work as a national strategy, in my view, because a national corporation can sustain a regional strike, as they did the last time.

I would also suggest that any Democratic candidate looking to make some headway in California would do well to highlight this issue RIGHT NOW and make sure that these large grocery chains are being held to account.

Nobody wants another strike.  But there is an opportunity to rectify the deep injustice to working people that was perpetrated in 2004, and to ensure basic fairness in the workplace.  I hope all of you can help with this project.

The SoCal Report (silent T)

In the interest of regional balance, here are a few things in the part of the state that gets sun (jus’ kiddin’, guys) which caught my eye:

• Full public financing of municipal elections will be on the agenda at tonight’s Santa Monica City Council Meeting.  Solidly progressive City Councilman Kevin McKeown raised this issue earlier in the year and couldn’t get a second, but they ran a staff report, and both Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are pushing this hard.  Just like everything else, we’ll need to win the Clean Money battle from the bottom up.

more…

• This complete crackup of the Minuteman Project is so hilariously predictable that it should be a reality show.  I can’t wait for the twists and turns and the backstabbing.  You put a bunch of power-hungry authoritarians in the same group, who knew that they’d start fighting each other for control?  Fascinatin’.

• You might want to think twice before eating in LA – the biggest produce wholesaler in the city, the 7th Street Market, was cited for multiple violations, including rat infestation.  Never been, not going now.

• I wish I had the time to write the badly needed very long series of articles about the proposed LNG terminal off the coast of Malibu.  This would be an environmental disaster for the coastline, yet the Governor has given tacit support to BHP Billiton to build it.  This blog is a great resource for this story.  Look at this part:

Environmental Protection Agency political appointees used non-existent analysis and misled the public when they reversed course and rejected tough smog rules for the proposed Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas terminal off the Malibu coast, the chairman of the House Investigations Committee said Monday.

Rep. Henry Waxman also accused top EPA officials of refusing to hand over key documents detailing the 2005 decision by a White House political appointee to overrule regional EPA officials on a key decision about whether the Cabrillo Port proposal can go forward.

The news from Washington comes as BHP Billiton and its lobbying firm have hired another two close associates of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, to press the case behind the scenes for Cabrillo Port. That facility faces key licensing decisions next month, and could be operating on Malibu’s coastal horizon in three years.

It looks like Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has withdrawn his support for the LNG Terminal, which is key.

New op-ed columnists at the LA Times.  Surprise, there are less now than there were – cost-cutting rulez!  Also, somehow, Jonah Goldberg kept his slot (then again, I actually like his op-ed today), though Arianna Huffington, Adam Hochschild, Gustavo Arellano (Ask a Mexican!) and Sandra Tsing Loh come aboard as “contributing editors,” which I think means they’ll write op-eds but won’t be paid as staff op-ed writers.

On Building Back Democracy In California

This is a really frustrating sign for democracy in the nation’s largest state.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that nearly one million fewer people are registered to vote in the state than two years ago. In February 2005 there were 16,628,673 registered. This year’s figure is down to 15,682,358 […]

“The percentage of people who have regsitered to vote vesus the total number of people eligible to register has dropped 5 percentage points in the past two years. This means fewer people are making the critical decisions that affect the lives of 37 million Californians,” Bowen said in a statement accompanying the newest Report of Registration.

We have two parties in California that are fairly dysfunctional.  The gerrymander of 2001 means that relatively few races are contested statewide, and given how adamant Nancy Pelosi and her allies are about keeping things the same, I don’t see that changing in the near future.  When you don’t have the energy and excitement that accompany contested races, you tend to get lower participation rates, and worse, less people even interested in the civic process at all.  The recent post-partisanship and cooperation and progress between Democrats and Republicans Democrats and a Republican governor who wanted to save his job may push the needle on this in the other direction, but I doubt it.  This survey by Binder research shows the real problem with the term limits initiative, the fact that the perception of it as a power grab by elected officials will threaten its viability.

We already know that voters don’t like Schwarzenegger and the Legislature fighting. A survey by David Binder Research in January 2006 showed only 46% support for “adjusting” term limits. Now, that figure is 59% in support of modifying the law through a ballot proposition. That corresponds with a better view of the Legislature and Schwarzenegger. In 2006, 42% of voters said they approved of the job performance of the Legislature, but a year later that has jumped to 49%. Schwarzenegger himself jumped from 53% approval to 68% in the Binder survey.

But it comes with caveats. After the initial questions, the survey-takers explained some of the arguments against the initiative: It would grandfather current members and would permit some lawmakers to easily win re-election at a time when California needs “new blood.” Support for the initiative dropped to 54% of those surveyed, with 35% saying they would vote no and 11% undecided. Anything lower than that – especially without an opposition campaign started yet – would be a major danger sign for any initiative.

I think the universal pre-school initiative was well ahead of that number in a similar poll a year out.  It lost big.

The point is that voters believe that they have little direct voice in choosing their legislators; the gerrymander does it for them.  They view all of the machinations of the legislators with cynicism, expecting that they’re a bunch of people who want to keep power.  They are disconnected from the business in Sacramento by a state media that, by and large, doesn’t report on it.  And the state parties are flaccid, irrelevant to the everyday concerns of citizens and disassociated from the grassroots.

I want this to change.  The future of California as a national bellweather and the source of progressive change depends on it.  That’s why I got active in the party and became a delegate.  The California Democratic Party convention next month is the perfect opportunity to begin to reverse this troubling trend of non-participation.  It’s important to note that there are many in the political class who don’t really want more participation.  A small turnout is one that is quantifiable and easier to manage.  But it’s corrosive to the process of democracy, and ultimately I believe that when people are engaged, progressives win because we have the issues in our favor.

We desperately need the state party to adopt a 58-county strategy and compete in every borough, village and hamlet in California, letting the residents there know that they have a choice.  There’s a second gerrymander at work here beyond the chopping up of legislative districts; there’s the gerrymander created by the CDP choosing not to compete on what they consider unfriendly turf.  Jerry McNerney, Charlie Brown and others ought to have put that fiction to rest.  If we make the effort to fully fund Democratic organizations all over the state, activate core supporters everywhere, and make our case no matter what the environment or the partisan index, I have no doubt we will be successful.  In addition, by becoming a presence at the grassroots level, the CDP will bring voters back into the process again, and help increase voter participation instead of contributing to the decrease.

You can read the resolution promoting a 58-county strategy for California.  I will be at the Santa Monica Democratic Club’s executive meeting tonight asking for their endorsement.  This is absolutely vital to the future of democracy and the progressive movement.

Frank Russo – Blogging Pioneer

Frank Russo won his battle with the Capitol Correspondent’s Association of California, and became the first blogger to receive full credentialing to all Legislative events in California.  This is fantastic, to have a great progressive writer who actually likes to cover the goings-on in Sacramento be given the tools and the means to do so.  This is good news for all of us who cover California politics, as we’ll be able to cultivate a source we trust who will take us beyond the media spin.  Congratulations, Frank.

CA Prisons: All (insert anyone’s name but the Governor’s) Fault

Gov. Schwarzenegger did a dog-and-pony show at a crumbling state prison yesterday, and had the temerity to BLAME THE LEGISLATURE for the problem.  Apparently some other Austrian bodybuilder has been governor for four years.

on the flip…

Schwarzenegger is campaigning for an $11 billion reform and building package that he says will alleviate severe overcrowding at the state’s 33 prisons and avoid a federal takeover. At the photo opportunity, the governor said “the Legislature has not really yet committed to really solving this problem.”

State Senate leader Don Perata said about the governor’s visit: “I am disappointed that the governor today blamed the Legislature for the state’s prison crisis instead of offering ways to attack the problem. As the governor said, we need to show the court short-term solutions.  But the governor’s only short-term proposal has been ruled illegal. … It’s time to stop the antics and give the Legislature something to work with – not hyperbole or hastily crafted fixes. I am committed to working with the governor, but he must step up and show real leadership.”

Being post-partisan is all about NOT showing real leadership.  It’s about “bringing people together” and making sure other people take the blame when things go awry.  That’s why he hasn’t actually submitted a health care proposal.  That’s why he won’t say whether or not he supports term limits or any specific redistricting plan.  Post-partisanship is about makeing sure your ass is covered and you always have a scapegoat.  And it certainly isn’t about acting decisively to solve major crises like the one we have in our prisons.  Good for Perata for speaking the truth here.

SEIU Local 1000, which includes the second-most correctional workers of any other union (about 14,000 employees), tore the Governor’s plan to build his way out of this crisis to shreds today.

The report said the governor’s $41 million plan to reduce inmate recidivism is dwarfed by his construction proposals. They seek to add 16,238 beds at existing prison sites, 5,000 to 7,000 beds in new community re-entry facilities, 45,000 county jail beds for state and local inmates, 10,000 additional prison hospital beds to satisfy the federal courts and 5,000 juvenile beds.

“You cannot solve this problem just by building another prison,” said SEIU 1000 representation and organizing Vice President Marc Bautista of the state’s prison overcrowding crisis. “Something else has to be done now, and sentencing reform and parole reform are the first steps. If you’re successful, you won’t have to build a new prison.”

Bautista said the union favors building only the prison hospitals. The rest of the governor’s construction plan, he said, is “excessive.”

It’s obvious that we lock too many people away, including nonviolent offenders who should be treated medically instead of thrown into the nightmare that is our state jails.  The self-interested thing for the SEIU to argue would be the governor’s plan, which means more jails and more employees.  But they have the interests of the state at heart, and would like to see us safer and more humane.  The governor has only one interest: post-partisanship, which really means himself.

What Is A California Issue?

Well, the Make Iowa And New Hampshire More Important In the 2008 Primary Act has passed both houses of the California legislature.  And it will be signed shortly.  Some people seem to think that this will “give California clout” in picking the Presidential nominees, although those people don’t appear to be the legislators that passed it, as they’re far more concerned with moving a term limits relaxation initiative into place so they can be re-elected.

But I want to address those who say, in a manner not unlike a four year-old demanding that everyone in the room look at the crayon drawing of a turkey that they traced with their hand, “Now the candidates have to pay attention to CALIFORNIA issues!”

Oh yeah, well… what are those?

Sure, there are a few issues that impact this state directly, but it’s not like they’re not deeply felt across the country as well.  Are there no other states with immigration problems?  Do Nevada and Arizona have all the water they need?  Does no other
state have a health care crisis?

I actually seriously want to know.  Why is there this stress on candidates having to pay lip service to random issues that they’ll immediately drop for the general and the rest of their Presidency anyway.  When’s the last time you heard the word “ethanol” after January of an election year?  How much talk of the farm bill is in the public discourse?

The only “California issues” I can think of are how to check runaway film production (which isn’t a federal issue) and increasing H1-B visas for the hi-tech community.  But even those aren’t statewide.

To me, the most important issue I would ask of any candidate is whether they will disavow the concept of the unitary executive and the pernicious use of signing statements to nullify Congressional law.  It may not be a California issue, but it’s pretty damn important IMO.

I actually don’t buy the premise at all.  Presidents should not pay attention to “California issues” above others, the same way they shouldn’t play to the concerns of any 10% of the population above the majority.  Presidents must consider the whole country’s well-being, not the narrow concerns of a few.  If you want legislators to pay attention to California, I’ve got news for you: there are a whole bunch of CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS.  Expecting anything else is little more than narcissism.

Partial Victory For Villaraigosa in LAUSD School Board Race

Amidst an absurdly low turnout, LA Mayor and nominal 2010 gubernatorial front-runner Antonio Villaraigosa was not quite successful enough to tip the school board in his favor – at least not yet.

There were 4 open seats on the school board.  Villaraigosa was fairly well assured to win 2.  He needed 3 for a majority on the board.  Here are the results:

In nearly complete returns, the mayor’s favored candidates finished ahead in three races and trailed in the fourth. But two of those leads were not sizable enough to avoid a May runoff, meaning that, once again, Villaraigosa’s school intervention plans could be put on hold […]

The two big-money contests pitted an incumbent against a challenger favored by the mayor. In those races, Villaraigosa faced one loss and one runoff. The union-backed Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte won handily in her South Los Angeles race and Villaraigosa-favored Tamar Galatzan and incumbent Jon M. Lauritzen headed to a May showdown in the San Fernando Valley.

The mayor officially sat out the battle in District 1, which pitted incumbent LaMotte against charter school operator Johnathan Williams.

He “sat it out,” most likely, because he didn’t want to get sullied by Williams’ defeat.  But he pretty much did everything but endorse him.  Williams outspent his oppoenent by 2-to-1 and still lost.

That the Galatzan-Lauritzen race is headed to a run-off is no surprise: the two had big money behind them, the challenger from the mayor and the incumbent from the teachers’ union.  Amazingly, the mayor was unable to put away the race in District 7, where Villaraigosa-endorsed Richard Vladovic will now go to a May runoff against retired principal and low-funded candidate Neal B. Kleiner.  That’s really surprising to me.

We’ll now see a UTLA firewall strategy for May.  Villaraigosa needs both seats to gain a school board majority.  And he seems to know that it’s a tall order, because he’s being conciliatory again:

Villaraigosa had planned to oust at the ballot box any board members who resisted his schools agenda, but amid Tuesday night’s uncertain outcome, he adopted a conciliatory tone. Earlier, he had called board President Marlene Canter, with whom he had refused to meet for months.

“I want to work with the school board,” he said in an interview. “I’m reaching out…. I’m looking for a partnership that’s focused on change and innovation. That’s what it’s been about from the beginning.”

Riiiight.  Why do I have trouble believing that one?  Must be the two million dollars funneled to candidates battling incumbent school board members.

Prosecutor Purge – Feinstein Catches the DoJ in a Lie

The hearings on the fired US Attorneys today were riveting, and our own Senator Feinstein has been instrumental in beinging it about.  Today, she brought out some ammo in making her case that these prosecutors were fired for expressly political reasons.

The Justice Department’s alibi (today, at least) was that US Attorneys like Carol Lam were fired for performance-based issues, particularly their inability to speedily prosecute immigration and border cases as per Administration policy.  But Feinstein had an ace in the hole: a letter from the Justice Department, claiming that nto only was Carol Lam an exceptional prosecutor, but that she was FULLY implementing Administration policy of prosecuting immigration cases.  Feinstein’s statement is on the flip.

The Department has used the fact that I wrote a letter on June 15 to the Attorney General concerning the San Diego region, and in that I asked some questions: What are the guidelines for the U.S. Attorney Southern District of California? How do these guidelines differ from other border sections nationwide? I asked about immigration cases.

Here is the response that I got under cover of August 23, in a letter signed by Will Moschella. And I ask that both these letters be added to the record.

“That office [referring to Mrs. Lam’s office], is presently committing fully half of its Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases. Prosecutions for alien smuggling in the Southern District under USC sections 1234 are rising sharply in Fiscal Year 2006. As of March 2006, the halfway point in the fiscal year, there were 342 alien smuggling cases filed in that jurisdiction. This compares favorable with the 484 alien smuggling prosecutions brought there during the entirety of Fiscal Year 2005.”

The letter goes on to essentially say that Mrs. Lam is cooperating; that they have reviewed it and the Department is satisfied.

This is a big deal, as it pretty much invalidates the Justice Department’s story.  And it’s refreshing to see Sen. Feinstein stick her neck out and wade into a controversial story.  The information that came out of today’s House and Senate hearings will be fodder for months, and Feinstein has been at the forefront of ensuring that this criminal enterprise being run out of the White House and the Justice Department is held accountable.

Rep. Jerry Lewis and the OTHER US Attorney

Over where I normally hang my hat I’ve been pretty intently following the Case of the Purged Prosecutors, the political firings of 8 US Attorneys by the Justice Department, which will reach a fever pitch tomorrow when many of the fired attorneys testify before Congress.  But Laura Rozen has an interesting story about the 9th US Attorney who left her job this year, the one who wasn’t fired:

Former Los Angeles US attorney Debra Wong Yang, who had been heading up the investigation into former Appropriations committee chairman Jerry Lewis. And where did Yang go on January 1st? To the law firm representing Lewis.

For those just joining us, the Jerry Lewis investigation is huge and far-reaching.  He basically turned the House Appropriation Committee under his chairmanship into a personal earmark factory.  The list of questionable dealings is long and luminousLewis has already spent $900,000 in legal fees and hasn’t even been indicted yet.

Rozen continues:

The fact that Yang resigned her office November 10 — just after the elections – is interesting. It’s no secret that the decision to retire and a decision informed by knowledge one is going to be dismissed are sometimes the same thing. Is Yang the exception that proves the rule, or no exception at all? Among the powerful partners at Gibson Dunn, the firm that offered Yang a golden parachute, you will remember, is Theodore Olsen, the Bush White House former solicitor general. The Lewis investigation is of course the big enchilada, the one that would really hurt, and not just Lewis. Will Congress want to hear from Yang as well?

I hope they would, and I would suggest to Sen. Feinstein, a leader on this issue, that she look into what happened in her home state with respect to Debra Wong Yang.

Democrats, Why the Immediate Apology?

I seem to be picking on Fabian Nuñez in spite of myself, but this kind of behavior is pretty weak for an opposition leader in the Legislature.  It plays into the myth of Democrats as wishy-washy cowards without the courage of their convictions, and it eliminates the aspect of contrast that is central to provide to voters so they can make an informed choice.  Nuñez saying that the Governor appeared to talk down to leaders in Washington was merely an opinion; immediately going back on it suggests a palpable fear of even having one.  Why are Nuñez and his aides so desirous of staying in the Governor’s good graces that they feel compelled to say this?

“The speaker and the governor continue to have a great working relationship as well as a deep respect for each other. It would be extremely unfortunate if a series of quotes in response to questions about Senator Feinstein, the governor, and their styles would be used to characterize any conflict or disagreements between them.”

over…

Bob Salladay is dead-on right in saying that the Governor himself has no problem denying the same courtesy to Nuñez:

Heaven forfend that one of the girlie men in the Legislature – which is run by “evil” public employee unions and “a really weird, very sick man,” and should be turned part time because it produces too many silly bills – should say something impolitic about Schwarzenegger. But why dwell on the past?!

Why is there this seeming 11th Commandment in the Legislature of “thou shalt not speak ill of the Governor” when he exhibits the exact opposite behavior?  And Nuñez’ initial comment was not even something worth apologizing for – he was just saying what he would do differently in regards to dealing with Washington.  And he said post-partisanship is “some word (Arnold) made up.”  Which it clearly is.  Democrats and Republicans don’t come together in this state; Democrats and a governor up for re-election did, with absolutely no support from any Republicans in the Senate or Assembly.

What’s wrong with saying that?  Is Nuñez afraid he won’t get access to the smoking tent now?

California Democrats appear not to understand that their role is to advocate for the constituents that elected them.  I’m not asking for a food fight every two seconds, but if you do stick out your neck and make a statement, there’s no need to immediately clean it up.  It looks like you’re chasing the polls.  It looks like you can’t defend your beliefs.  It looks like… well, it certainly doesn’t look like leadership.