Tag Archives: Administrative

With Regret, We Have Banned Bill Bradley

(Warning:  The rest of the post is long, and we apologize in
particular to our RSS subscribers for the unfortunate necessity.)

Mr. Bradley is, to my knowledge, the first non-spammer we have have
banned. Given Mr. Bradley’s profile, and what we take to be his
differences with Calitics, we don’t want there to be any confusion as
to the reasons for our actions, so we feel compelled to lay those
reasons out in detail.

Mr. Bradley has been involved in California politics for a long time,
and we would have thought that he could have used his experience to
participate here in an informative and interesting way. 
Mr. Bradley has chosen to be consistently and repeatedly nasty to those
of us who operate Calitics and (more important) our community — an
internet troll in the classic sense.  He has rejected with
contempt our requests, both public and private, that he moderate his
behavior.  In some cases, Mr. Bradley has responded to members
our community with what we reluctantly interpret as veiled

We have to confess, we don’t really understand this behavior by a
man who prides himself on his long experience in politics
(interestingly, experience on which he bases his contempt and criticism
of us).  Perhaps he wants us to take this step.
 Still, Mr.
Bradley has been almost entirely disruptive without substantive or
constructive commentary, and so after a great deal of thought, we are
making him persona non
here at Calitics.  

To explain our decision, we think Mr. Bradley’s behavior speaks best for itself.  We have placed Mr. Bradley’s entire Calitics comment
history below the fold.  For the context of the conversations in
which he participated, you may click here:  https://calitics.com/userDiary/comments.do?personId=110.  
This comment history includes all of the comments which were previously
troll-rated by our community — they are now visible.  It seems
apparent that Mr. Bradley came to Calitics looking for fights.
occasionally found them, and we will not pretend otherwise.
we are not sure what other response would have been expected by Mr.
Bradley given his consistent failure to be even remotely courteous, or
to actually provide feedback other than brief unsupported assertions
with insults.

Last, we have also seen this behavior in the comments in at least one
other forum, which lends support to our belief that Mr. Bradley does
not have an interest in engaging with our community in a positive
way: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/5/19148/98341

We have no doubt that Mr. Bradley will tell his side of the story, with
the same contempt for us and our community that he has shown here.
 And he is both free to do so and privileged enough to have a
platform to do so.

He is, however, no longer welcome to our platform.

My “Nativist” Streak and Your Lack of
Sorry, folks, calling me a “nativist” because I simply
state a couple
of politically inconvenient realities is, to put it diplomatically,

Take the rose-colored PC glasses off and read what I
actually wrote.

Meanwhile, in the world of real politics  …

As you will see in my report tomorrow, the games are
already underway
on this issue in the governor’s race. We may not like how it turns out.

by: Bill
@ Sun
Mar 26, 2006 at 16:55:48 PM PST
Seriously, now …  
…  Grow up. You didn’t “get under my skin,”
as if that would be an
achievement for you, I’m simply correcting things on links into my site
so that the vast number of people who read this have something other
than a distortion of what I said.

Standard political practice, nothing more.

by: Bill
@ Mon
Mar 27, 2006 at 23:06:29 PM PST
Thank you, J King  
For identifying yourself as a spammer.

This same exact screed  —  and
incidentally, campaigns carry operating
“debt” all the time, I don’t think Westly is anywhere near running out
of money, obviously  —  was posted on my web site.

Here is the deal, friend.

If you want to participate on my site and say whatever
you want, within obvious boundaries, that is fine.

It is not fine for you to spam my site.

The next time you post on my site, make sure it is not

by: Bill
@ Mon
Mar 27, 2006 at 23:14:44 PM PST
“Tees up the attacks on

Uh-huh. Reporting fact is not teeing up the attacks.

I spent about one sentence on that point.

Then I revealed the historical impact of the state party
endorsement on statewide races.

Very little, and there, only on a down ballot race.

It helps to have been to a couple dozen state Democratic
conventions as activist, operative, and journalist.

Sorry you don’t like the facts.

by: Bill
@ Mon
May 01, 2006 at 19:54:29 PM PDT
Real time blogging  

Incidentally, I published several thousand words of
real time blogging
during the convention. I’m the only one who uses a wireless handheld so
I don’t have to go off somewhere to write about what happened.

by: Bill
@ Mon
May 01, 2006 at 19:56:37 PM PDT
More distortion  

Look, you don’t get to distort what I write.

You should read what is actually written before making
sophomoric comments about it.

Don’t add to the current distortion by distorting what I
wrote before, either.

by: Bill
@ Mon
May 01, 2006 at 22:52:29 PM PDT
a lawyer?  

Funny, you don’t write like a lawyer. Winning a case
sometimes requires getting the facts straight. Or so I’m told.

Don’t rely on cheap attitude.

by: Bill
@ Mon
May 01, 2006 at 22:55:02 PM PDT
Your “interactive media” spin  

Gimme a break, pal. A sentence noting the nature of the
convention does
not constitute  “tees up the attacks on Angelides for

“What you call distortion I call discussion.”

How about what you call discussion I call BS?


by: Bill
@ Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:23:21 AM PDT
No other poll, private or public, reflects
this, including Arnold’s 
But you guys hope against hope for Phil against
Arnold. (As does Arnold.)

Actually, that is a poor bet.

But what do I know, right?


by: Bill
@ Mon
May 08, 2006 at 17:55:23 PM PDT
And aren’t we soooo bored?  


by: Bill
@ Tue
May 16, 2006 at 19:57:26 PM PDT
Angelides IE TV Ad On My Site  

By the way, I have the Angelo(ides) IE TV ad available
through my site.


by: Bill
@ Wed
May 17, 2006 at 08:55:02 AM PDT
3 strikes myth 
And what percentage of the prison population is there
because of 3 strikes?

FAR fewer than I used to think.

Before I bothered to become informed, which you are
determinedly not.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jun 28, 2006 at 10:59:01 AM PDT
That is a fact …
…  I just gave you a fact.

You don’t seem to like it.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Jun 29, 2006 at 09:40:55 AM PDT
Reality, you want reality? Doubt that.
It’s a little under 5 percent.

Not that you have cited anything to back up your
assertion, of course.

This is the difference between opinion journalism and
partisan propaganda.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jul 05, 2006 at 13:00:05 PM PDT
Actually, it’s been on Rough & Tumble
four times this year … 
…  Because I have referred to
Schwarzenegger’s reversal on 187, which
happened years ago, in four columns this year alone.

He said it back in 2002, in a speech to the Commonwealth
Club in San Francisco.

I reminded the Democratic spinners who e-mailed me about
it this morning.

by: Bill
@ Tue
Jul 25, 2006 at 17:10:48 PM PDT
Fake Poll Good, Real Poll Not So Good

Real poll really not so good.

Schwarz up 13 in PPIC.

If you want to know what is really going on, come to

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jul 26, 2006 at 22:38:19 PM PDT
Oh, Your Latest Distortion  
You were wrong about the governor’s race from start to

Now you are distorting reality once again in your latest

Let’s see if you can follow along.

The robopolls were wrong about the governor’s race
throughout the
campaign, showing a much closer race than was actually taking place.

They were completely out of phase with the respected
California polls  —  Field, PPIC, LA Times.

They were also out of phase with the PRIVATE DEMOCRATIC

Including Phill Angelides’ own polls. And the labor
union polls.

At the end, they somewhat suspiciously reflected what
the real polls were showing.

Or do you believe the race was really close until the
end? And that all the other evidence was wrong?

In which case, you are quite delusional.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Nov 17, 2006 at 07:22:24 AM PST

Ask Your Late Angelides Friends About Their
Now that they no longer have to lie, you will learn
the truth.

Which I already told you.

But you are impervious to the truth, which you obviously
can’t handle.

The robopolls and Internet polls were wrong during the

The real polls  —  Field, PPIC, LA
Times, and the Democratic tracking polls  —  were

Have a nice day, chump.

by: Bill
@ Tue
Nov 21, 2006 at 10:25:12 AM PST
You still have an Internet
You should be so lucky as to be so unemployed.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 07:51:38 AM PST
You still don’t get it  
Irrational boosters of the disastrous Phil Angelides
like yourself were
blind to the danger of a total blowout for Democrats. You were still
claiming the guy was doing well, ferchrissakes.

The Dems had to rally behind the down ballot candidates
who couldn’t
really take care of themselves, ie, not Jerry and Lockyer. They finally
stopped wasting millions on Angelides and did it, barely in a couple of
cases, such as LG and SOS, 3 and 4 point wins that should have been
much more

by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 07:56:18 AM PST
Still have me in your little web site banner,

Get a life.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 08:12:44 AM PST
A stalker wannabe like you should learn what
GOTV is 

Keep telling your “audience” how great Angelides is


by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 09:20:05 AM PST
You guys are fairly pathetic, you
This is a very small blog. It usually has few to no

Your history of lying, like you’re doing again, and
delusions  —  generally you delude
yourselves  PHIL WILL WIN!!!!  — 
probably accounts for much of it.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 17:38:31 PM PST
BTW, why do you still have a Phil ad playing

by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 17:40:37 PM PST
You children are amusing  
You obviously have no idea what I do. I love cyber
journalism. It’s going better than ever. I have too much work.

For one thing, I leave the “outrageous” comments to
folks like you.
Absent facts, you do hysterical cheerleading for lousy campaigns and
imagine that you are taken seriously.

But that only happens when you try to “blogswarm”
grownups. As some of your little friends learned to their chagrin.

So, I see a whole six comments there about the big
crusade againstg Ellen Tauscher.

She probably should be taken on.

But you boys don’t have the chops to do it.

Go finish your homework.

For one thing, learn what GOTV is.


by: Bill
@ Wed
Dec 13, 2006 at 19:45:32 PM PST
Boys, boys, really …  

…  Get some sources.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 15:23:20 PM PST
Well, your reading skills are poor as usual …

…  I have repeatedly debunked the neoncon
“associate” from PJM.

If you can read, which evidence does not suggest you
can, I’ve run over
half a dozen stories about the very much alive Ayatollah Khamenei.

So, kiddie boys, get out of high school, get a remedial
reading lesson.

Oh, and get some sources.

I have sources in the Middle East.

You should be able to meet SOMEBODY in Hollywood.


by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 17:00:22 PM PST
And again, childish reading on your part

…  As I use Morris to promote the idea that
the most left-wing major candidate is a serious contender.

You may have heard of him. I’m sure you’ve never met him.

John Edwards.

Jerking knees do not serious analysts make, boys.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 17:02:07 PM PST
See if you can grasp the concept …  

…  You use a CONSERVATIVE source, i.e.,
Dick Morris,
to advance your own thesis that a liberal candidate is strong.

Try it sometime.

Instead of the undergrad gibberish 
—  George Lakosh  —  you boys trot out.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 17:09:28 PM PST
Wrong as usual, on repeated counts …

Unbelievably stupid on your part. I didn’t sell NWN. I
own it. They PAY
ME to have it on their network. They also pay for all the upkeep.

I know that is hard for you to grasp, but, … 

Now let’s see if you can grasp the point of this item,
which you failed to grasp before.

TRIANGULATOR? That’s what Dick Morris, the quirky yet brilliant
longtime Bill Clinton guru-turned-Hillary Clinton-hater-and-Fox News
commentator seems to think. He thinks the second term U.S. senator and
former first lady still has the edge for the Democratic presidential
But he sees Edwards as running in the open field with his clearcut
opposition to the Iraq War. The former North Carolina senator and 2004
Democratic vice presidential nominee leads all the polls I have seen
from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. And although Hillary leads
in the private polling I’ve seen from second-in-the-nation Nevada, I
know from also having done Nevada that an attractive and articulate
trend presidential candidate, which Edwards is, can sweep to victory in
the Silver State. And that is without factoring in the union support
that Edwards will have in the Las Vegas market, which should comprise
about 70% of the Democratic vote in Nevada come next January 19th.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 17:19:35 PM PST

Actually, wrong again, as usual

You boys are very slow students in the class.

I control and own everything I do. Which is obvious if
you can read.
But your penurious envy overrides your moderate intellect. Since no one
is paying you for your thoughts, which, are, well, we’ll leave it at

I also don’t suffer from a sophomoric ignorance.

Incidentally, as you and your kiddie boy associates
would grasp if you
could read, I think Hillary is a very strong candidate. I say great
things about her. I say great things about Obama. I say great things
about Edwards. Etc. The only Democrats I DON’T say good things about
happen to be really bad candidates.

Hmm, any guesses there? And generally ones I actually
know, unlike you.

I have friends with Hillary as with all the major
Democrats. She may very well be the next president.

In fact, if I had to bet  …  I
wouldn’t tell you  …  🙂

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 17:56:35 PM PST

Oddly, my correction to your stuff didn’t show

We’ll try it one more time, all that it’s worth.

Wrong again. I own and control the site. That is the way
the contract,
and the law, works. Since you’re not a professional, you don’t
understand it.

I write what I want when I want. As is obvious to anyone
who can read.
They pay me for the privilege of having me on the network.

In fact, I just gave the CEO of PJM shit again for never
that idiotic Ledeen “report.” I’ve already debunked it half a dozen
times on NWN. And I reminded him I have an unpublished column exclusive
to them about it.

You kiddie boys spend too much time conning yourselves
into the fallacy of argument by association.

Unclever people on the right wing try that all the time,

Now grow up, get some sources, and learn. I have sources
in the Middle East. You should be able to get some in Hollywood.

Incidentally, as is also obvious, I think this is a
strong Democratic field. Three or four could easily be the next

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 18:28:26 PM PST
Oh, and speaking of Netwits …  

…  Some of your doppelgangers on the
hyperpartisan right say NWN is a
front for the Clintons, since Bill in particular was so often featured
on it during the fall.

My best man is one of Hillary’s biggest supporters. So
it goes.

by: Bill
@ Fri
Jan 26, 2007 at 18:31:11 PM PST
You guys can talk yourselves into anything

I always enjoy how the handful of you egg each other
on into a “consensus” position.

Gavin Newsom is a smart guy. I suspect he will figure
this out.

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jan 31, 2007 at 19:03:14 PM PST
 Try not to distort so badly

…  Oh perpetual student.

What you should do is work in some actual campaigns
before pretending like this.

You should also stop deleting responses correcting total
distortions of fact.

If you don’t learn, you will learn that that is a

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jan 31, 2007 at 22:01:29 PM PST
Oh, and “blogswarm”

Check with Nancy Pelosi next time before you get all

Incidentally, Antonio has serious problems in LA, too.
In case you all had not noticed.

I wonder what it all means. 🙂

by: Bill
@ Wed
Jan 31, 2007 at 22:04:01 PM PST

Nope, your story is flat wrong.

by: Bill
@ Tue
Feb 06, 2007 at 16:02:36 PM PST
Oh, really now, pathetic stuff  

You know, “blogswarm,” perhaps you should generate an
actual “swarm” before you adopt such a sophomoric name.

Or better yet, use your real name instead of hiding
behind a childish handle.

I’m trying to recall what you have been right about.

Go back to school, finish your undergraduate degree,
THEN start with
the snarky opining about people who actually do things in the world.

Not that Ragone can’t be a total pain in the ass. Trust
me, I know.

But how would you know?

You have no experiential or informational base to judge
his behavior against.

Merely a typical generalized resentment of people who
elected about 14 delegates to the state Democratic convention.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 14:33:34 PM PST
Julia Rosen, DO NOT start with me

…  Do you know how nice I was to you last

With your endless dissembling?


Go back to sleep.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 15:04:44 PM PST
You guys are junior varsity  


Not journalists.

Because your stuff is constantly inaccurate.

Not pols.

Because it is amateurish.

And simply uninteresting and boring.

Plus you run lies.

And you censor.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 18:07:11 PM PST
If you want to be take seriously …  

…  You will acknowledge the many clear
inaccuracies here at Calitics.

If you don’t want to be taken seriously, well, have a
nice day.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 18:12:52 PM PST
lso, BRIAN …

…  You will stop CENSORING the corrections
to the distortions that are printed here.

If you fail to stop your censorship, well, that will be
a problem for you.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 18:14:31 PM PST
And here is my reply to Brian’s thoroughly
disingenuous e-mail

Oh, SFBrianCL, whatever.


Dispense with the nonsense.

Your site is anything but civil, accurate, or

Don’t start.

A word to the wise.

On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Brian Leubitz wrote:

Mr. Bradley:

I’m Brian Leubitz from Calitics.  I’d like to
remind you of the policy
on comments at Calitics.  We allow comments from everybody,
and are
very lenient with troll-rating (hiding) comments.  However,
appreciate if you could try to keep the tone civil. While I understand
that debate can get heated, it is not acceptable to personally berate
any other users.  As, I said in my comment on Calitics, we
believe in
the value of an active town square. Calitics, and many other community
blogs, are based on the theory that everybody has the right to talk
about politics and people involved in politics. If you feel
differently, perhaps Calitics is not an appropriate venue for your

As a reminder, the Calitics Rules are available here: http://www.calitics….

Thank you for your consideration in the future.

Brian Leubitz

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 18:16:07 PM PST
 Or, maybe he’s trying to get
something actually passed …

…  By having people from all sides


by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 18:33:32 PM PST
As for your psychotic personal attacks …

Incidentally, “SFBrianCL,” it was clearly not within
your obviously
hypocritical “rules” to publish psychotic personal attacks against me.

This is not the amateur hour, hard as it may be as a
student for you to grasp.

Nor is this patty cake.

Straighten up and fly right.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 19:24:12 PM PST
Reality check …

The Bee is trying to cannibalize the institutional
position of the
Capitol Morning Report with regard to lobbies, corporations, agencies,
and some politicians.

Its simple, short-term cannibalization. The price point
is preposterous, as Bee insiders acknowledge.

The anti-Arnold snark of Bob Salladay and the LA Times
blog is already
several months past its sell-by date. November 7th, 2006. AS 56%, PA

You remember that, Julia Rosen, from your little
remarked upon ABC site.

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 20:01:39 PM PST
 And for the record, impact of $5
million in ABC TV ads …

…  No impact whatsoever on the
polls  —  including internal labor
and Democratic and Angelides polls  —  or the

by: Bill
@ Thu
Feb 08, 2007 at 20:03:30 PM PST
Get some real world experience …

…  by working in a real campaign or 4,

by: Bill
@ Fri
Feb 09, 2007 at 09:37:05 AM PST