Strategist tells GOP crowd their “messaging” is wrong, not their principles

by Brian Leubitz

The California Republican Party is having its semi-annual big event this weekend. It isn’t exactly notable for the impact it will have on the state, more for the attempts at introspection. The party formally inaugurates their new leader, likely long-time Ranch Cucamonga politician Jim Brulte, today. Brulte called the job “more like a bankruptcy workout”  and seeing the big numbers on their debt ledger, it is hard to argue.

But the national civil war between the grassroots of the party and some of its establishment, like Karl Rove, is in full swing here. The party is looking at a more diverse and moderate electorate than they can really appeal to. The Todd Akin controversy came roaring back onto the scene when Celeste Greig, the head of the Reagan-dubbed “conscience of the Republican Party”, the California Republican Assembly, stepped in a pile of dung.  Her comments, entirely refutable if you actually read the science are really quite hard to discern from Akin’s comments that she was intending to put down as poor form.

“That was an insensitive remark,” Greig said. “I’m sure he regretted it. He should have come back and apologized.”

She then went on, however, to agree with Akin’s premise that such pregnancies are uncommon.

“Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it’s an act of violence, because the body is traumatized,” she added. “I don’t know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don’t know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act.”(HuffPo)

Who knows what Greig was going for here, but facts don’t seem to be the intended destination. She clearly doesn’t understand how the body works, and is probably best to stay away from the topic. You would have thought somebody, having observed the Akin mess, would know not to go there. But apparently not, and Greig tread on, not exactly following Rove’s instructions that came later to change the messaging.

For his part, Rove went delicately into the fray, careful to indicate that the party “shouldn’t lose its principles.” However, they should try to repackage them into a tidy package that makes Californians, and Americans more generally, forget about the Bush years (his doing) and the terrible rancor emerging from the House these days. Given that this is California, and Latinos are soon to become (if not already) the largest demographic group in the state, that is a lot of repackaging. But Rove says maybe it is time for a little flexibility, rather than demanding ideological purity.

“We’re going to have to have a little forbearance in listening to the ideas and suggestions of other people in our party about how we modernize ourselves and get ready for the next contests in the future,” Rove said, “because we don’t own all the answers right now. I don’t want to snuff out the next Jack Kemp by saying well, don’t worry, he’s not a principled person.” …

“Losing has one great benefit to it,” Rove said. “It gives you the chance to start fresh to look everything anew and start rebuilding from the ground up in innovative and thoughtful ways that will expand our reach and expand our members.”(Steven Harmon/BANG)

That may be true, but color me unconvinced that the CRP is really looking at ditching their litmus tests. While Tom Del Beccarro calls Prop 8 a “difficult issue” for the CRP, his party is also missing the pulse wildly on gun control and immigration and a host of other issues. The state rejected the anti-tax and anti-labor rhetoric last fall, and the CRP continues to try to go back to the same well.

While the supermajority rules should be completely eliminated, they could make a revitalized Republican Party matter in California again. But they need to change more than their messaging if they want to be really viable in this state.

Looks to reduce costs, make safer communities

by Brian Leubitz

San Francisco has a strong record of trying to work to prioritize rehabilitation over retribution when it comes to sentencing. Sheriff Mike Hennessey, the current and prior DA, as well as a number of other elected leaders have tried to prioritize making our community safer. Sen. Leno also has a track record in the Legislature to prove that.

Senator Mark Leno has introduced new legislation that reforms California’s drug sentencing laws for simple possession. SB 649 allows counties to significantly reduce incarceration costs by giving prosecutors the flexibility to charge low-level, non-violent drug offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies. The bill also gives judges discretion to deem a non-violent drug possession offense to be either a misdemeanor or felony after consideration of the offense and the defendant’s record. SB 649, which does not apply to anyone involved in selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for sale, will help alleviate overcrowding in county jails, ease pressure on California’s court system and result in millions of dollars in annual savings for local governments.

“If we want safer communities, our collective goal for low-level drug offenders should be helping to ensure that they get the rehabilitation they need to successfully reenter their communities,” said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. “Instead, we sentence them to long terms, offer them no treatment while incarcerated and release them back into our communities with few job prospects.  This proposal gives prosecutors the option to reduce penalties so counties can reinvest in proven alternatives that would benefit minor offenders and save limited jail space for serious criminals.”

In addition to providing greater opportunity for post-release success, Sen. Leno hopes to also use the opportunity to reduce spending on jails and prisons. The LAO has estimated that reducing jail time for simple drug possession offenses could save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years. If the rehabilitation services are provided smoothly, this has the potential of being a win-win for the state.

However, given the history of this kind of legislation in the past, look for strong resistance as the bill proceeds through the Legislature.

Issue Now Wedges Against Republicans

by Brian Leubitz

Update: Attorney General Kamala Harris filed her brief in the Prop 8 case today. You can find the full brief at the LATimes website here.

Back in at the end of George W. Bush’s first term, Karl Rove looked at the map, and was worried. He couldn’t really run the president as a compassionate conservative like he did in 2000. That ship had sailed by then, so how could he turn out unreliable voters that would reliably vote for W? Why, go after the gays, of course.

It was as cynical of a ploy as is seen in politics, something straight out of the Southern strategy playbook. So, Rove got Republicans across the country to put gay marriage bans on the ballot to pull out social conservative voters that may not have turned out for W. And, he was once again able to squeak by with a win in 2004. It was a wedge issue that he used to bash over Kerry’s head. And it worked.

The issue had lost some of its strength by 2008, and the few measures on the ballot, including our own Prop 8 that year didn’t work the same magic for the GOP. While Prop 8 drew considerable attention, voters were more focused on the rapidly tanking economy. But the backlash from Prop 8, the ensuing legal battles, and the voter shifts in the last four years have since combined to make a toxic brew for the “Grand Old Party.”

By now, the polls are showing considerable support for marriage equality. In fact, the trend is undeniable and quite stark. Over the past eight years, support for the freedom to marry has grown by 21 points. Rarely do opinions change so quickly on any issue, let alone a civil rights issue like this one. In California, the most recent Field poll, from about a year ago, shows 59% support, against only 34% opposed. These are not the kind of numbers you want to spit into the wind of.

And this brings us to Meg Whitman. In 2010, she said she supported Prop 8 and would work to defend it during the primary campaign. She ducked the issue as much as possible after she defeated Poizner in the primary, but it was still on the record. Given the final tally, it likely wasn’t a deciding factor, but it also didn’t really help her cause.  And now that she’s back in the tech world, she’s free to end her pander to the extreme base of her party. In a post on LinkedIn, Whitman addressed the flip-flop.

I have come to embrace same-sex marriage after a period of careful review and reflection. As a candidate for governor three years ago, I supported Proposition 8. At the time, I believed the people of California had weighed in on this question and that overturning the will of the people was the wrong approach. The facts and arguments presented during the legal process since then have had a profound impact on my thinking.

In reviewing the amicus brief before deciding to put my signature on it, one passage struck an immediate chord with me. In explaining his own support for same-sex marriage, British Prime Minister David Cameron once said, “Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”

(Meg Whitman LinkedIN)

David Cameron also took heat from his own party when he pushed the marriage equality bill through Parliament. In fact, he lost a substantial chunk of his own MPs on the vote, and was only able to pass the bill with LibDem and Labour support. Yet that really only illustrates the underlying fact of the conservative loss on this issue. Despite the former first lady’s rejection of an ad campaign featuring her support for marriage equality, the writing is on the wall. Leaders like Whitman, Jon Huntsman, and Dick Cheney have already arrived at the basic understanding of where the country is moving on this issue.

Perhaps this will make an impact on the Supreme Court’s reasoning, perhaps not. But the pressure to not be the court that got a major civil rights case wrong must be very real for the Court. With electoral and legislative victories in 2012 and into this year, surely they can see the writing on the wall as well. The Oral argument in late March may give us a greater indicator as to just how important it is to them.

Photo credit: San Francisco march after Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8. Flickr user Thom Watson.

Issue may make sooner than expected return to the ballot if numbers continue to improve

by Brian Leubitz

You don’t often get second chances in ballot measure politics. Sure, there are the social conservatives that keep putting anti-choice measures on the ballot, over and over again. But, really, they are the exception that proves the rule. Most measures that go down to defeat aren’t heard from for a few years. But, Field’s latest poll on marijuana legalization may mean that Prop 19 was only the beginning of that discussion:

By a five to four margin (54% to 43%), California voters support legalizing the sale of marijuana, with age and other controls like those applicable to alcohol. This is the highest level of support for marijuana legalization since The Field Poll began measuring California public opinion on this issue in 1969, when just 13% favored its legalization.

The poll finds greater than seven in ten voters (72%) backing the state’s existing medical marijuana law. Two in three (67%) oppose federal government efforts to crack down on businesses attempting to sell marijuana for medicinal purposes. A 58% majority of voters also say they would favor allowing medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in the city or town where they live. (Field)

The victories in Washington and Colorado, and the relatively strong vote total for Prop 19 here, mean that this isn’t really a fringe issue anymore. There has been some rumors that the measure could be back on the ballot sooner rather than later, but 2016 seems more likely than 2014, if only for organizing purposes.

Field Poll shows string majority want additional gun control measures

By Brian Leubitz

The Field  poll has begun to release their latest data cache, today they focused on gun control. And resoundingly, Californians want to see gun violence reduced. The top line figure is stark: 61% favor stricter gun control, while only 34% want to “protect the rights of gun owners.”

The demographics of support are kind of what you would expect:

A little more than half the state’s male voters support tighter gun control, but the numbers soar to nearly seven of every 10 female voters, according to a Field Poll released today. .

This year’s nearly 2-to-1 support for gun control hides a deep partisan split. Eighty percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independent voters want tighter laws, but 65 percent of Republicans say no. (SacBee)

The California legislature is currently considering several measures but the most major restrictions must come in through the federal government.  And, unfortunately, the Congress seems to be dysfunctional and Republicans are not particularly interested in acting on this issue. Perhaps Congress will hear some of their constituents, but for the time being Sacramento can make a start.

Looking for answers in wake of Carnival Triumph disaster

by Brian Leubitz

It isn’t an area of particular focus for this blog, yet cruise ships are regular sights on California’s coast. And while most of the cruises departing from our ports are heading for quick jaunts up or down the coast, some routes head off for Hawaii, several days on the open sea.

I’ll also admit that some of my interest in this stems from the fact that my parents were scheduled to be on the Carnival Triumph just a week and a half after the engines exploded. In addition to the extreme danger that those passengers faced while drifting on the sea, let’s just say that my mother does not take kindly to poor treatment from business that she patronizes. I still vividly remember the day when she led the charge for her money back when Malcom X stopped halfway through the movie.

But I digress. Rep Garamendi, as Ranking Member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, sent a letter (PDF) to the Chairs and Ranking Member of the Transportation Committee asking for a hearing on cruise ship safety. The letter was sent in the wake of serious mishaps with the CARNIVAL TRIUMPH cruise ship. About the request, he said the following:

The magnitude of serious mishaps on cruises in recent years deserves a thoughtful deliberative inquiry by the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the industry. I’m requesting a hearing on cruise ship safety, because Congress has a responsibility to ensure that U.S. consumers and travelers are as safe as possible while at sea – regardless of what country the vessel is registered in.

“We must answer four questions: are U.S. laws and regulations being followed and enforced; are these measures written in an effective manner to accomplish for their stated goals; is the Coast Guard’s cruise ship inspection regime strong enough to protect U.S. passengers from non-compliant cruise ship operators; and what role should Federal oversight and enforcement play in ensuring the safety of American citizens?

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) has also called for a hearing after the Triumph debacle. These ships are now getting so large that they are essentially small towns on the seas. They are, for the most part, quite safe. However, when something goes wrong, it tends to go very wrong. Both California Representatives are attempting to ensure that we can limit these incidents in every possible way.

Clean energy projects to get almost $3B over five years

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: Senator Kevin de León, who is sponsoring legislation  that would implement the school green retrofitting plan, is working with Tom Steyer, Prop 39’s main backer. They launched a website that offers more information on the plan. With the support of the governor and a strong group of legislators, the school plan seems to be the likeliest outcome. However, the LAO criticism may make other options or a compromise possible. SB 39, and a similar bill in the Assembly (AB 39), will likely get some priority towards a quick passage that would make implementation as smooth as possible as the money starts coming in.

They had a press conference and made a 20 minute video of it. Enjoy!

Last November’s Prop 39 has two major aspects, one of which helped it rack up 61% of the vote. But let’s start a few years back, 2009 to be exact. In that year’s GOP budget hostage situation, the Republicans extracted a new tax loophole, allowing corporations to choose one of two tax treatments. It allowed those large multistate operations to save over a billion dollars annually, and thus, to shortchange our general fund a billion dollars annually.

In 2010, a labor backed measure, Proposition 24 attempted to close this newly created loophole. However, relatively few resources were directed at the measure, and it couldn’t overcome the anti-tax groups attacks.  That brings us to Tom Steyer and Prop 39. Steyer, a very wealthy venture capitalist, saw an opportunity to create good green jobs in California while closing this loophole. The measure permanently closes the so-called “single-sales factor” loophole, and dedicates about half of those revenues to green energy projects.  However, the measure wasn’t exactly clear as to where that money would go. The specifics were left to the people who are supposed to appropriate money, you know, those people that we hire to run our government, the legislature and the governor.

But, now there is this post of about $500 million (or more) annually to be directed to energy projects, and disbursing that was never going to be easy. Jerry Brown has a plan, however. Basically, noting his belief that the money should be counted under Prop 98’s educational funding requirements, he is calling for the money to be spent entirely on retrofitting schools for energy efficiency. He gets to count it for Prop 98, and everybody’s happy. Right?

Well, being that this is still California governance, nothing is ever so easy. The goal of retrofitting schools is certainly laudable, and will help redirect energy savings to the classroom (hopefully). However, in pure energy savings alone, there are other state institutions that could gain more from the efficiency upgrades, such as public hospitals and other buildings open 24 hours a day. But the Prop 98 impacts are difficult for somebody putting together a budget to ignore.

The LAO, however, has a different take.

Legally, the analyst’s office says the governor’s plan invites manipulation of the state constitutional guarantee by counting the funds toward school operating budgets. The analyst’s office says that approach marks “a serious departure” from how it interprets the state constitution, a view that the office says it “developed over many years with guidance from Legislative Counsel.” Additionally, the analyst’s office says it departs from what voters were told last year.

Brown’s Department of Finance disagrees. It says that because the money is paid by corporations into the state general fund, schools have a claim on it. … “Our proposal reflects the fact that education continues to be the top priority of the governor’s budget,” Director of Finance H.D.] Palmer said. He added that past budget cuts “took their toll not only on classroom instruction dollars but physical upkeep as well.” ([SacBee)

The LAO advocates putting the money through the California Energy Commission, in some sort of competitive process between public agencies.

This conversation is really just getting started, but tossing school finance in the process means that we’ll likely get some greener schools with a side of legislative controversy.