California political junkies are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll which shows former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown handily leading all the major Republican gubernatorial contenders (Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner and Tom Campbell) while Brown's rival for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination trailing the same three possible Republicans. Here's the data:
This is definitely NOT very good news for the Governor Gavin movement. That's too bad, because MadProfesah has been leaning towards Newsom, especially since Gerry Brown hasn't announced whether he wants the job (again) yet, and acting as attorney general, Brown was responsible for the devastatingly incompetent presentation by an Assistant Attorney General during the Proposition 8 California Supreme Court oral argument.
UPDATE by Dave: I would say that this poll is fairly meaningless. I’m guessing Rasmussen pushed leaners hard to get any kind of opinion. I don’t think anyone has really engaged on this race, and anyone thinking it will remain static isn’t being honest. This is more of a reflection of name ID, for good and ill, than anything else.
In 2006, the Schwarzenegger campaign uncorked an ad almost immediately after the primaries showing Phil Angelides walking backwards, the assumption being that he would take the state backwards as well. One of the ads liberally quoted Angelides’ rival for the Democratic nomination, Steve Westly, using the bruising primary against the winner. “What if Steve Westly was right?” the announcer says, after citing Westly’s rhetoric in claiming that Angelides favored $10 billion in new taxes. Steve Westly wrote most of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s early strategy and even his campaign spots, as Angelides was defined by his opponent swiftly.
Steve Poizner basically bestowed the same gift on eMeg Whitman over the weekend. The ads about Whitman’s failure to register to vote for 28 years write themselves, but Poizner took the liberty of making the ad. If Republicans know how to do one thing well, it’s go hard negative, and this ad will probably be very effective to the GOP primary audience. It will also be effective as a “here’s what Republicans say about Meg Whitman” ad next year, should see prevail in the primary. Poizner actually reiterated his call for Whitman to drop out of the race “for the good of the party” over the weekend at the Republican convention in Indian Wells. The issue received major pickup throughout the media.
And Whitman did herself no favors at all with some of the worst damage control you’ll see in politics, as she repeated like a mantra this line about how “there is no excuse for my voting record,” completely avoiding any specifics about why. If she manages to win the primary, expect to hear this audio right through to next November. It’s cringe-worthy.
I’m guessing the Republican Governor’s Association just tried to pull back their invitation to Meg Whitman to come to any of their gala events.
This is terrible crisis management, of course. And it suggests that the general election would be no kinder on eMeg. But it’s not like the split in the US Senate race, with serial non-voter Carlyfornia going up against wingnut conservative Chuck DeVore (The LA Times gets this wrong by trying to impose a blanket comparison). The Yacht Party grassroots has figured out that they have no candidate in the Republican primary, and regardless of who wins they probably won’t be all that excited to work for the top of the ticket.
For activists such as Mike Spence, past president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, such centrist talk inspires unease following what they said was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s betrayal of the Republican base.
Spence called the Republican governor a failure and blasted him for breaking his promises to conservatives by, among other things, approving the biggest tax increase in state history earlier this year. Schwarzenegger has also championed traditionally liberal causes such as Assembly Bill 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by about 25 percent by 2020.
“After the governor, people are cautious about who they support,” Spence said.
Of course, this could be true of the Democratic grassroots as well, depending on circumstances. I think the only certainty in next year’s elections will be the low turnout, as a slice of both sides stay home for their own reasons. But the Yacht Party’s cast of characters look particularly uninspiring.
A few weeks ago, Jim Evans wrote about Meg Whitman telling the Earth to “Get Bent”. Today she affirmed her commitment to being a worse environmental steward than the faux-environmentalist that currently occupies the Horseshoe:
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said in San Diego on Wednesday she would suspend Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature environmental initiative if elected.
The former eBay CEO told an audience at Gen-Probe Inc. in Mira Mesa she would issue an executive order suspending AB 32, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, until its long-term economic consequences are better understood.
“As governor, I would work hard to protect our environment,” she said. “But the needs of our environment have to be balanced with the needs of our people and the needs of our economy.We have too many overreaching environmental regulations that have left us at an economic disadvantage to our neighboring states and AB 32 is a prime example.”(SDUT 9/23/09)
Of course, this is yet another example of Whitman not really knowing what she’s talking about, as most of the Western States are either participating in or “observing” the Western Climate Initiative. But beyond that, Whitman is perpetuating a false choice.
It is a false choice that we either address climate change or we grow our economy. Not only are these goals compatible, they are mutually beneficial. As we aim to decrease our carbon emissions, we will develop new technology and build new business that will lead California into the new low-carbon growth era.
As much as Whitman and her other ostrich-headed friends like to claim, we should not and cannot ignore climate change. It is a greater threat than any temporary inconveniences that it causes the state. Yes, we will need some help during the transition period, but the question isn’t whether we are going to transition to a low-carbon economy, it’s whether we are going to do it the easy, business-smart way, or by being dragged kicking and screaming as others take the initiative.
California must be the leader. Whitman intends to crush that leadership in a misguided attempt to revert to yesterday’s economy.
As we drift headlong into the 2010 Governor’s race, there are some very big issues facing the state. One of these, is the prison crisis. The legislature and the Governor were only able to come up with cuts that would reduce the population by somewhere in the 25,000 range, while the federal courts are looking more in the 44,000 range.
The Bee took a look at how the candidates are talking about this issue, and let’s just say that some of the positions are semi-reasonable, and others simply aren’t. Now, for those of you who were wondering about the Michael Jackson “Black or White” Video, well, I give you Steve Poizner’s black or white take on the world:
Whitman and Poizner, on the other hand, have tried to out-tough each other, railing against legislation passed last month by the state Senate that would have let some inmates out earlier and appointed a commission to rework state sentencing laws. The ultimate version of the bill passed this month did not include the sentencing commission or a provision to release more than 6,000 inmates to home detention.
“You have to be a really bad person to get into state prison,” Poizner said. “So I’m opposed to releasing people who are dangerous, absolutely opposed. That’s no way to balance the budget.”
Whitman went even further, saying she opposed rewriting any prison and parole guidelines that would shorten prison terms for any inmate.(Sac Bee 9/23/09emphasis mine)
Poizner simply takes the reactionary view, that is, that if you are in prison, you are a bad, bad, person. Of course, this ignores the crazy, messed up world of parole violations that lead to people going to prison to serve out a term because they missed a meeting with their parole officer or some other technicality. So, yes, you have to break the law to end up in prison, but painting all prisoners with such a wide brush serves neither the prison system, the prisoners, nor the state very well.
And then you look at eMeg‘s statement, and that seems all the more bizarre when you put it together with her statement from yesterday saying that she wants to can 40,000 state workers. As the governor’s staff has pointed out, you can’t fire that many workers without firing a bunch of prison guards. And if you plan on increasing the prison population as eMeg seems to be saying here, well forget about cutting state employee roles, you’ll end up hiring another 10,000 prison guards. And that doesn’t even consider the overtime pay that the guards get in spades.
Jerry Brown, who mentioned that he would consider the position, and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom have stated fairly similar positions. Both want to reduce recidivism (good!) but haven’t stated whether they would support a sentencing commission or any serious reform (bad!).
On the other hand, Republican Tom Campbell has actually been quite the reasonable guy on this front. He supported the Senate bill (Good!) and has put out specific, pragmatic policies on this and some other issues, many of which are pretty vanilla milquetoast. Nonetheless, a candidate that is willing to talk about the issue from a logical viewpoint, rather than an emotional reactionary viewpoint, deserves some credit.
Campbell, on the other hand, is bucking the prevailing wisdom in his party. He backed both the Senate version and the final bill although both shorten prison terms of some inmates.
“We have an opportunity to direct a more effective prison system,” Campbell said. “I’d rather approach this pragmatically, through outsourcing of prisoners, developing a triage of parole violators and focusing on more violent offenders in prisons.”
Now, Arnold supported the Senate bill too, and that hardly makes him a great Governor, does it? But, unless our elected leaders are willing to deal with thhis issue out of a place of pragmatic, problem-solving leadership, rather than out of fear of an electoral backlash, we shouldn’t expect too much progress.
Jerry Brown has gotten pretty good at playing coy about the governor’s race. Well, considering that this is going to be a very expensive race, it seems he’s decided that raising money is more important than being coy:
Attorney General Jerry Brown said on Tuesday that he plans to launch an official exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money for the 2010 governor’s race.
During a visit at Los Angeles City Hall where he met with City Council President Eric Garcetti, Brown said he plans to take the next step to begin raising the millions that will be necessary to be competitive.
*** *** ***
“They are talking about spending $150 million,” Brown said. “They will buy up all the airtime with that kind of money.” (LA Daily News 9/22/09)
Some call it a Twitter Town Hall, some call it a Tweet hall. Whatever you want to call it, you can follow the action at the hashtag #ttnewsom. The Mayor will join in at 12:45.
The big question: How will he work with Asm. Tom Ammiano in Sacramento?
Meg Whitman isn’t quite the punching bag of say, an iCarly. She’s dumped a bucket load of cash into her campaign, and has some actual support coming in as well.
But, she saw the red meat that Steve Poizner was dishing up to the base, and thought she better get in the action once again. So, in a speech that she’s giving, oh, right about now, she puts a bunch of ground round on a platter and serves it up rare as can be. Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle just posted some choice excerpts from the speech:
As governor, I’ll cut taxes to create jobs. Specifically, I’ll cut taxes on job-creating businesses of every size and implement targeted tax relief to rebuild manufacturing in California. I’ll expand research and development tax credits. I’ll establish tax incentives and credits for companies that train and hire displaced workers. And I’ll establish a cabinet-level position in my administration dedicated to private sector job growth. (SF Gate)
So, R&D credits, huh? Well, her friends in Silicon Valley will love that. How about her friends in the Central Valley who are struggling to pay the health insurance bill and the mortgage? No word on that issue. But don’t worry, because unlike Poizner, she’s got a plan on how we afford the tax cuts: Slash 40,000 government jobs.
As I committed to in February, if elected I will identify and implement at least $15 billion in permanent spending cuts from the state budget. I’ll eliminate redundant and underperforming government agencies and commissions. And I will reduce the state workforce by at least 40,000 employees. That’s a 17 percent reduction that would reset the workforce to 2004-2005 levels and save the state a projected $3.3 billion annually. (SF Gate)
Right, that’s the ticket. I know Whitman is a business scholar, so I’ll leave this question to her: How does the state sustain an additional loss of 40,000 jobs without a consequential, and substantial, drop in consumer spending and thus private sector jobs.
The fact is that this plan is even more half-baked than Poizner’s merely ridiculous plan. This one carries few specifics other than “we can improve IT efficiency.” Yes, that’s true, but the state government isn’t ebay, and you can’t simply apply feedback scores and tell everybody that they just have to trust reputation and then pretend everything is hunky-dory. And you can’t really outsource your labor to slave labor, as eMeg does. Nope, the state actually needs its workforce to accomplish some very important goals. Things like fighting fires, protecting its citizens, you know, silly stuff.
I’m not even sure I need to attack this plan, as the Governor’s people have already done so. From back in June, here’s Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear criticizing the plan:
Former eBay CEO and Republican candidate Meg Whitman campaigns across California, advocating job cuts to net a 10 percent “head count” reduction in California’s 345,000-person state workforce.
But she got a brushback from Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear, who suggested such across-the-board cuts are all but impossible.
“The governor only has authority over contracts with 100,000 state employees paid through the general fund,” McLear said. “About two-thirds of those are in Corrections. So it’s unclear how you cut 30,000 positions without affecting public safety.”
Aaah, the battle royale between Whitman and Poizner, where nothing really makes sense, but you get style points just for dressing up your utility grade red-meat.
This week San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom will conduct his first online town hall. I’ve been asked to moderate it, and so I want to know what’s on your mind.
It isn’t news to anyone here that California faces an incredible set of challenges. The budget solution is a temporary patch at best and our legislators can’t fully address the problem due to the two-thirds requirement. Our school system ranks 49th in the country where we used to be among the leaders. Our unemployment rate is projected to hit an astonishing 12.2 percent this year-and in some counties, it’s been higher than that for a long time.
Even though we’re clearly in crisis, opportunity abounds. California has long enjoyed a reputation for leading the way with innovative policies for the rest of the country.
At Netroots Nation, we believe voters should have access to their elected officials, expect authentic conversation and hold them accountable. At our national convention we’ve heard from elected leaders including President Obama (then a Senator), President Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Gov. Howard Dean, Mayor Gavin Newsom, and many more. We’re happy to play a part in creating a space for that dialogue locally. That’s why I agreed to play a part in this online town hall.
Then join the conversation online for a video town hall Wednesday, September 23 at 6 p.m.
If you want to make sure you get a reminder about the details for the town hall just RSVP here.
Since this is a town hall for Newsom I’m particularly interested in seeing some questions related to differentiation of positions between Newsom and other candidates in the race.
Well, that’s two pretty big endorsements in only a few days. Now, I’m not sure former Senator Kuehl will make quite the splash that the Bill Clinton endorsement did, but for progressives, Sen. Kuehl is an important leader. An out lesbian, Kuehl has been a progressive stalwart throughout her legislative career. Her record was most strong on health care. While she was in the Senate, she carried SB 840, the single payer plan for California, and even got it passed once, before it was vetoed.
“In Gavin Newsom, I see a leader who has taken courageous stands to protect the rights of all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation,” said Kuehl. “And Gavin’s success in providing access to health care for all San Franciscans is the kind of leadership we need to see in Sacramento if we’re to achieve universal health care in California.”
Now, Mayor Newsom will still need to work on the fundraising front to actually be competitive. But if he is willing to discuss some of the issues important to progressives, his campaign could pick up a little more grassroots energy.
On the flip side, SEIU Local 1021 paid a not so friendly visit to Room 200 of SF’s regal City Hall to complain about pay disparity for jobs that are heavily minority and female.
SEIU Local 1021 paid a visit to Mayor Gavin Newsom at his City Hall office yesterday, but his doors remained closed and locked. It won’t be the last time Newsom will hear from them, however. The union is launching an aggressive campaign to “dog the mayor,” organizer Robert Halaand told the Guardian, to pressure him to uphold the city’s commitment to comparable worth. (SF Bay Guardian)
Jerry Brown is really a riddle wrapped in an enigma. First, he tries to play coy as to whether he is planning a run:
“The whole system is bogged down all over Sacramento,” Brown said. “We need a very strong leader who can pull everyone together. I’m not a candidate. Yes I am leading in the polls, but I’m not yet convinced….The people of California are not anxious to hear from their candidates yet, and the deadline for filing papers isn’t until March – so tune in.” (SF Chronicle 9/16/09)
Wow, isn’t that cute. I’m ahead and going to crush all of you, but I may not run. So keep guessing, suckas. But from a tactical standpoint, you can’t blame the guy. He has nothing to gain by officially announcing. He’s already way ahead of any non-self-funding candidate, and likely already has a slew of (wink-wink) commitments for more money once he switches the Jerry Brown2010 campaign account to the Gov race. He’s in no need of additional name ID, so why not keep them “guessing?”
But, once again, we’re back in 1978. As Steve Poizner sought to grab the right flank by talking crazy on taxes, it seems that Jerry Brown is still repeating the mantras that he began reciting on June 7, 1978:
Brown followed by calling the logjam in Sacramento “a management problem” and saying legislators needed to carefully choose priorities in deciding how to stimulate the economy.
Brown said he would not raise taxes if he became governor, noting that the public is opposed. “We’re not in the revenue raising business,” he said.
A management problem? That’s like saying the Titanic took on a little water. Sacramento has more than a mere management problem. Is management going to make the Republicans cease their petty power plays? Going to make the legislative system more functional? Going to get the few Republican votes that we need every year?
That’s all just a management problem?
Look, I think Jerry Brown is as qualified, if not more qualified than the field for this gig. Perhaps he can find Republican votes where our current (Republican) governor could not. He does know the building better than pretty much anybody. Given his experience, he’d be in a better position than any other candidate to bring about a consensus.
But how is it that we get out of this mess without even considering revenue. At some point, the lines between Tom Campbell, who supported a gas tax increase last year, and Jerry Brown begin to blur. And, unfortunately for us, they aren’t meeting in the middle. I know I’m picking on Jerry Brown, but it really isn’t just him. We are losing the battle on talking about this budget, over and over and over again.
