Back in 2006, I and a lot of other grassroots progressives were angered that California showed little to no movement in its Congressional and legislative seats despite a wave election.  You can see some articles about that here and here, when I explained why I was running as a delegate to the state Party.  And frankly, I could rerun the entire article today, but instead I’ll excerpt.

I’ve lived in California for the last eight years.  I’m a fairly active and engaged citizen, one who has attended plenty of Democratic Club meetings, who has lived in the most heavily Democratic areas of the state in both the North and South, who has volunteered and aided the CDP and Democratic candidates from California during election time, who (you would think) would be the most likely candidate for outreach from that party to help them in their efforts to build a lasting majority.  But in actuality, the California Democratic Party means absolutely nothing to me.  Neither do its endorsements.  The amount of people who aren’t online and aren’t in grassroots meetings everyday who share this feeling, I’d peg at about 95% of the electorate.  

I mean, I’m a part of both those worlds, and I have no connection to the state party.  I should be someone that the CDP is reaching out to get involved.  They don’t.  The only time I ever know that the CDP exists is three weeks before the election when they pay for a bunch of ads.  The other 23 months of the year they are a nonentity to the vast majority of the populace […]

Only two Democrats in the entire state of California were able to defeat incumbents last November: Debra Bowen and Jerry McNerney.  Both of them harnessed the power of the grassroots and used it to carry them to victory.  They also stuck to their principles and created a real contrast with their opponents on core issues.  The only way that the California Democratic Party can retain some relevance in the state, and not remain a secretive, cloistered money factory that enriches its elected officials with lobbyist money and does nothing to build the Democratic brand, is by building from the bottom up and not the top down.  By becoming more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in its strategy, we can ensure that California stays blue, which is not a given.  This is a long-term process that is in its third year, and will not happen overnight.  But it’s crucial that we continue and keep the pressure on.

In 2008, we experienced that most anomalous of events, a SECOND wave election in a row.  Barack Obama won the biggest victory at the top of the ticket in California since WWII.  And yet, the efforts of downticket Democrats yielded only minimal success.  This is despite a decided improvement in the party in terms of online outreach and voter registration.  So something is deeply, deeply wrong with how they’re conducting campaigns.

I’m going to lay out the good, the bad and the ugly on the flip and make some suggestions as to what we must do to improve this for the future.

The Good

This wasn’t a wipeout at the downballot level.  The voters agreed with the Calitics endorsements on 8 of 11 ballot measures, with 1, Prop. 11, still too close to call.  We did manage, at this hour, a net gain of two Assembly seats, which could expand to three if Alyson Huber in AD-10 has some luck, and a gain of one Senate seat if Hannah-Beth Jackson holds off Tony Strickland in SD-19.  It is true that those numbers, 50 in the Assembly and 26 in the Senate, would be high-water marks for this decade.  And we came close in a few other seats that we can hopfully capture in the future.  In the Congress, we have thus far gained no ground, but a couple seats, CA-44 and CA-03, look well-positioned for the future, and with Bill Durston set to run for a third time, his increased name ID and the closeness of partisan affiliation in that district should make it a targeted seat at the national level.  

Voter registration was the driving factor here.  In red areas, Democrats did the leg work of registering thousands upon thousands of voters and making uncompetitive seats suddenly competitive.

The Bad

They forgot to turn those new voters out.

What shortsighted CYA masters like Steve Maviglio and Jason Kinney fail to understand, apparently, is the concept of opportunity cost.  When you have Barack Obama on the top of the ticket winning 61% of the vote, it is simply inexcusable to have gains that are this modest.  Maviglio doesn’t tell you that AD-78 and AD-80 were gerrymandered to be Democratic seats, so essentially we got back what was expected in the Assembly, and with a 106-vote lead, who knows what’s in store with SD-19.  The concept of a wave election is that such energy at the top of the ticket will necessarily trickle down.  And that’s what I based my initial projections on, that Obama would make “out-of-reach” seats suddenly competitive.  But he didn’t.  And there are two reasons for that: ticket-splitting and voters that stopped at the top, causing a significant undervote.  I don’t have numbers for Obama at the district level, so it’s hard to be sure about ticket dropping, but the ballot measures are generating about 600,000-800,000 less votes than the Presidential race or Prop. 8.

If you want a further analysis, djardin did a great analysis comparing Barbara Boxer’s share of the vote in 2004 in Assembly districts, when John Kerry was on top of the ballot, against the vote share from the Assemblymembers who were built for the district in 2008, with Obama.  The numbers are astonishing.

District Candidate       Boxer Vote      2008 AD Vote

*78 Marty Block                      57.9%               55.0%

*80 Manny Perez                   57.5%               52.9%

*15 Joan Buchanan               52.6%               52.9%

30 Fran Florez                 49.8%               48.3%

26 John Eisenhut                 48.6%              48.3%

10 Alyson Huber                 48.1%               46.2%

*pickup

In most of these races, the AD candidates are slightly underperforming the 2004 Boxer vote.  The exception is Joan Buchanan in Assembly District 15.   Buchanan may have been helped by demographic changes in the district.

It’s simply ridiculous that any district candidate would underperform the Boxer vote, after four years of incredible registration gains and a 61% performer at the top of the ticket.  It’s inexcusable, and nobody inside the party should be feeling good about missing out on the second wave election in a row.  These moments don’t happen often.  And these failures are what lead Yacht Party leaders like Mike Villines to crow about how “Republicans will still be empowered to protect Californians from higher taxes.”  He knows that he keeps dodging bullets and doesn’t have to worry about a backlash for his party’s irresponsibility.

These expectations are not unrealistic and this is NOT about gerrymandering, regardless of what fossils like George Skelton say.  Alyson Huber, Linda Jones and John Eisenhut had virtual parity in terms of registration in their districts.  Fran Florez had a much higher Democratic share.  Obama should have carried them to victory.  Thanks to him, Democrats took multiple state houses and made gains all over the country, in far more difficult circumstances.  There are systematic barriers to a progressive wave here right now.

So what is to account for this?  It’s important to note that the problems we saw with the No on 8 campaign should not be viewed in isolation.  They are a symptom of the poor performance of the consultant class here in this state.  No ground game?  Check.  Maviglio is crowing about the fact that they had a lot of volunteers on ELECTION DAY.  That’s too late.  Based on what I’ve heard, the CDP dumped all their door-hangers on the local parties, who had no volunteers to hand them out and instead relied on the Democratic clubs to do it.  That’s dysfunctional and disorganized.  Furthermore, that makes clear that no money was put into field – door knocking, phone banking, etc.  Instead, the consultocracy again relied on slate mailers and a modicum of TV ads, hoping the IE campaigns, which spent over $10 million, would take up the slack.  There was a low-dollar donor program, and it netted something like $200,000, which doesn’t pay for two days’ worth of spots, and it didn’t start until 8 weeks out.

There’s no sense of urgency, no notion of the permanent campaign.  Did ANY CDP messaging mention the yacht tax loophole?  Did they exploit the Republican budget, which was unnecessarily cruel?  Was the drive for 2/3 used as a banner across campaigns to frame a narrative on the election?  Were any issues put to use?  No.

Part of this is what I call our political trade deficit.  We export money and volunteers and get nothing in return.  The energy and effort put into the Obama campaign locally was impressive, but it didn’t translate into anything locally.  

California is a state that was expected to vote heavily for Obama. California donors accounted for perhaps 20% of his record-setting $640 million-plus. In the final days of the election campaign, Californians provided even more for the Democratic nominee: They volunteered.

Even though California was not a swing state, Californians still mattered. Some took leaves from work to knock on doors and traveled to the battleground states of Virginia, Colorado, Ohio and others. They even have a name, “bluebirds,” people from blue states who flock to Republican strongholds and swing states to help Obama’s campaign.

Jack Gribbon, California political director for Unite Here, the unions that include hotel and restaurant workers, oversaw an independent campaign focused on the swing area of Washoe County in the battleground state of Nevada. Knowing that Las Vegas and Clark County, in which the city is located, would probably vote for Obama, Gribbon sought to help swing the more conservative Reno-Sparks area toward the Democrat.

Using multiple voter lists, Gribbon targeted 16,000 voters, most of them with Spanish surnames, many of them Democrats and some of them newly registered.

It’s incredible that Californians can be so easily motivated to contribute to a national effort, which requires a lot of work on their behalf, picking up and moving across the country, but they cannot be tapped for a local ground game.

But I don’t blame Obama on this.  He’s trying to win an election.  It’s not his fault that he’s more charismatic or more of a volunteer magnet than the California Democratic Party.  The point is that the party has to supplement this, by working in off-years and early in the year to build a grassroots base.  And there’s a blueprint for this.  It comes from Howard Dean.  This was part of his memo after the election:

Governor Dean’s first step was to assess our Party’s strengths and weaknesses and put in place a strategy to address those issues.  Dean developed a business plan to rebuild the Democratic Party, modernize our operations and expand the electoral map.  The emphasis was on lessons learned and best practices, and it included the following key components:

·  Rebuild the Infrastructure of the Party – After assessing the needs on the ground, we hired full-time permanent staff in all 50 states, trained staff and activists, introduced new measures of accountability, and developed a unified technology platform. Over the past four years we’ve held 140 trainings for candidates, campaign staff, organizers, Party leaders and activists in all 50 states.

·  Upgrade and Improve the Party’s Technology/Modernize the Way We Do Grassroots Organizing –  Over the past four years the DNC has made significant investments in technology, creating a truly national voter file, improved micro-targeting models and developed 21st century campaign tools that merged traditional organizing with new technology.

·  Diversify the Donor Base – Shifting the emphasis of Party fundraising to include both small donors and large donors, the DNC brought in more than 1.1 million new donors and raised more than $330 million from ’05 – ’08. The average contribution over the last three years was $63.88.

·  Amplify Democratic Message and Improved Outreach – Created a national communications infrastructure to amplify the Democratic message and reach out to groups we haven’t always talked to and expand the map to regions where Democrats have not traditionally been competitive – including the South and the West.

·  Professionalize Voter Protection Efforts – Created a year-round national, state and local effort to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote.  

Those are the bullet points, but the details are important.  Training and deploying full-time staffers throughout the state is very desperately needed.  They could implement a version of the Neighbor-to-Neighbor program that proved so successful nationwide.  The DNC voter file is an amazing tool that I have had the opportunity to use.  California, a leader in technology, ought to have the most comprehensive online database of its voters in the country, which we can use for micro-targeting and outreach to distinct communities.  And finally, this is about PERSONAL CONTACT AT THE STREET LEVEL.  Two years after I campaigned for delegate on a platform of making the party present in people’s lives year-round, not just at election time, that is still not a part of the picture.  This is why everybody walks away to go volunteer and donate elsewhere.  They have no connection to the state party, no interest in the state’s issues, and are in many ways contemptuous of the efforts of state politicians.  They haven’t been drilled on why the government is unmanageable thanks to the 2/3 rule, and they haven’t internalized the urgency of why that must be dealt with.

The silver lining is that these thousands of California-based volunteers, who learned organizing on the Obama campaign, could actually be channeled and put to use by the CDP if they chose to do so.  The role of the next state party chair in this effort is crucial.

Quite simply, what has been tried isn’t working.  In two election cycles with massive gains at the national level, in California we have crumbs.  Something is deeply wrong.  Something is broken.  And that must be fixed.  

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced he will veto the universal health care bill recently passed by both houses of the CA legislature. His announcement, said the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, reads “like a health insurer’s advertising dream, full of catch phrases that twist the truth in order to frighten consumers…”

FTCR also noted that the health industry boosted Schwarzenegger to nearly $100 million in campaign donations with a $125,000 burst of contributions in August alone. The industry has given him $4 million overall.”

The universal health care plan is solid, and everyone in California–individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations, hospitals, doctors, nurses–everybody but bloated private insurance companies–need this. Arnold has given Phil Angelides the issue he can champion. Phil needs to heed this call, and be the hero.

I don’t use the term lightly. “A leader, not an actor” may be a clever tagline for his TV spots, but like it or not, Phil Angelides is a major player in a political drama. An experienced Hollywood hand like his opponent, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, knows this instinctively: political campaigns are pure melodrama, and the successful candidate makes himself the hero.

Melodrama is emotional, it’s big and it’s black-and-white. There are no self-contradictory gods as in Greek myth, or heroes with fatal flaws as in classical drama. It’s the virtuous hero overcoming impossible odds to defeat the despicable villain. Melodrama means drama with melody: a musical soundtrack. It’s opera in all its forms—high, light, horse, space and soap. It is also the basic form of TV commercials, especially for politicians.

“The new politics of democracy,” writes political scientist Alan Wolfe, “resembles a daytime television melodrama more than an academic seminar: attention is captured when conscience is tempted, courage displayed, determination rewarded, wills broken, egos checked, pride humbled, and virtue rewarded.”

In terms of imagery and experience, Hollywood’s Schwarzenegger has the obvious advantage of having starred in melodramas, as both hero and villain. In fact the two distinct halves of his term as Governator replicate his most famous role as the Terminator. In the first movie he’s the Terminator for the powerful machines. In the second he’s switched sides to champion the human rebels. As governor, he represented the Bush Republican right, until his ballot initiatives were defeated. Then he became the champion of more moderate and even liberal measures. Can he be a political hero replicating what he did as a movie hero?

As for Angelides, even though he is unlikely to be cast in a Hollywood melodrama, all is not lost. Some heroes in melodramas of the past fought against injustice, for the little guy and the oppressed. They included reformers, workers, strikers and crusading reporters. There were many popular melodramas about social causes. Probably the most produced American play was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s abolitionist melodrama, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and other Frank Capra film favorites were melodramas, as were stage and film biographies of Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

Past and present political candidates have created their images and developed excitement around their candidacies with the melodramatic appeal of fighting for the little guy. Right now, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is enjoying stratospheric poll numbers in his race for Governor, as the corporate crime-fighting hero. (Wall Street furnished villains for many stage melodramas.) In Connecticut, newly victorious Democratic candidate for Senate Nate Lamont is the people-power, anti-war hero, defined in part by TV commercials crafted by the same Bill Hillsman who helped turn unknown college professor Paul Wellstone into a populist hero.

Health care is a dramatic issue, and the sides are drawn. This plan, as described by the San Francisco Chronicle,“would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians.”  The need is extreme:”as many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers.”

  “We know the health care in place today is teetering on collapse,” said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. “We need to do something to improve it, to reform it, and this is what we are bringing to the table.”

Of course, as everyone in Hollywood knows, the real drama isn’t on the screen– it’s in the audience. Is this the year for a worker’s champion and a civil liberties, election reform, environmental and above all, a universal health care hero? It must be, win or lose. The only way to find out how this show will play is to mount it with clarity and conviction. And don’t forget the music.

I believe this is the single most important poll of this, the silliest of seasons, Election Season. It’s worth a few minutes of your busy day to stop and read this in its entirety. It states very clearly, that large segments of voters are willing to change the status quo this November under defined conditions.

I was invited to participate in a conference call held by USAction.org Thursday, June 29th. For those of you unfamiliar with USAction, they are a non-profit organization that campaigns to strengthen social, economic and health security for all Americans. Recently USAction’s Education Fund was selected by Working Assets as one of 50 nonprofits eligible for funding in 2007. They are a legitimate group with a strong commitment to progressive change in this country.

I have no idea why they chose me to participate in the conference call. The other attendees included not only bloggers but progressive columnists. The reason for the conference call was to discuss a poll USAction.org commissioned regarding the issues that are important to swing voters in the key swing states, districts and cities in this election season. Swing voters were the turning point in electing George Bush for a second term.

A swing voter is defined as someone who doesn’t always vote along their party lines or is independent of party affiliation with either the Democrats or Republicans. I am one of the latter since I am registered as “decline to state”. The swing states, are defined as those states that “Lean Takeover, Toss-up, or Narrow Advantage Incumbent Party” by The Rothenberg Political Report as of early April, 2006. These states include Pennsylvania, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, and Minnesota, as well as Tennessee.”

The swing districts are:

IA 1, OH 6, CO7, AZ8, OH18, TX22, NM1, PA6, IL8, IN9, IN8, CT2, LA3, CT4, GA8, IL6, WA8, GA12, FL22, CA50, VT-at large, IA3, MN6, PA8, WI8, NC11, TX17, WA2, CO3, KY4, SC5, NY29, IN2, NV2, CO4, CT5, LA7, NC8, FL9, OH13, OH15, AZ1, OH1, KY2, MN2, NH2, VA2, KY3, PA7, PA10, CA11, NY20, NHY1, NY1, UT2, KS3, NV3, TN4, OH5, IN7, NJ7, FL8, NY19, ND at-large, and SD at-large

The poll was conducted by Greenberg,Quinlan, and Rosner Research. Prior to Thursday’s conference call with GQRR and USAction, they provided us with the poll results, how they arrived at the results and obtained the data. It was a lot of information to digest. Thankfully, the folks from GQRR explained the data and answered our questions. The reason for this poll was to frame the issues that are important to the swing voters and to identify what angers them with regard to the current state of our Union. Keep in mind that these voters, for the most part, elected George Bush in 2004.This fact can not be stressed enough.

I have the permission of USAction to use any and all the data regarding this poll and to distribute it widely. I want to share with you what I consider to be some very important findings. You can view the same information that I was given by going to their website. The link for this project in its entirety is here: http://usaction.org/swingnation I have covered only a small portion of the questions asked the voters.

A whopping 73 percent describe the country as off on the wrong track, 66 percent disapprove of the performance of George Bush and nearly half (49 percent) strongly disapprove. The reasons for this anger range from the War in Iraq to the various scandals that have engulfed our elected officials and various departments of our government. Their anger also includes, and I quote from the Swing Nation memo here: “But much of the anger reflects persistent economic anxieties four years into the Bush economic “recovery.” By nearly a 2:1 margin, voters describe the economy in negative terms; nearly one third struggle to make ends meet.”

Another fact from the poll that I found enlightening, with regard to how these voters think about our current elected officials is this: “Fully 73 percent agree, “It seems like the federal government always puts the needs of corporate special interests ahead of the needs of average families.” Another 74 percent agree, “Government should do more so that working class and middle income people do not get left behind in today’s economy.” This matches up with what most, if not all, progressive’s believe doesn’t it? Their frustration is our frustration.

This poll was not only about what people hate or distrust regarding our current government. It offered solutions to the problems we face as a nation. The voters were asked to respond to a specific “plan” that would alleviate the waste in our federal budget, provide quality public education, clean energy and affordable health insurance for all Americans, just to name a few of the points. A direct question asked was:

Let me tell you about something called the [plan]. Under this plan, government will invest more money to expand access to quality child development and preschool programs that help kids start school ready to succeed, will strengthen public schools, expand college aid and will provide access to high quality, affordable health care for all. This plan will also provide all Americans access to free high speed Internet and promote safe, clean energy to help end our dependence on oil. In order to pay for the plan, it would eliminate recently passed tax cuts for corporations and those earning over $200,000 per year [and include new measures to hold government accountable and reduce corruption and waste.] Having heard this, do you favor or oppose [plan]?

Their responses fell into these categories:

69 percent favor

24 percent oppose

7 percent don’t know/refused

The rightwingers will tell us this election season that the issues are the occupation of Iraq, flag burning, gay marriage and their favorite, the war on terror. I feel that this poll points out that people are not as willing to follow George Bush and his minions or the Senate and House of Representatives down the path they have chosen for us as a country. This poll shows us that the people, who made the difference in the voting booth during the 2004 election, will not be led down the same path by the same people again if they are given a good alternative. They are tired of our government protecting big corporations and their bottom line. This poll shows us that the average American does not care about the trumped up war on terror more than they care about the economic issues facing us today. They are sick and tired of financial insolvency within our federal government and at the same time, giving tax breaks to the top 1% of workers and huge corporations like the “Big Oil” companies. The swing voter cares about the environment, public education from K through college, oil dependency and a host of other social and economic issues. The swing voters don’t want rhetoric, they want a plan. Our candidates need to give them a plan that will bring us, as a country, back to financial stability and educating our children so they will be able to handle what life throws at them in the next century. The right will tell us that the economy is fine, and this poll shows us that swing voters aren’t buying the bullshit. Swing voters care about the working poor and the slowly disappearing middle class. Their concerns are OUR concerns. When you take away the labels, we, as a nation are really worried about the same things. These are moral issues not political ones, they cross party lines, according to the GQRR poll.

Remember, these voters were not labeled as anything other than Democrats, Republicans or Independents. They were not asked whether they held liberal or conservative views. They were only identified by the factors I named at the head of this post. These issues are the ones that need to be addressed if the Democrats want to take back our government. We, as citizens and bloggers need to get this message out to those who we wish to see elected. I did not cover every angle, issue and point made by the poll. I did not want to overload you, the reader, with facts and figures. Please feel free to read all the documentation on USAction’s website, which I linked at the beginning of this post. It’s very lengthy, and broken into three parts but in my opinion, worth your time. You can now, do one of two things;

You can move on to the next blog.

Or you can take action by spreading the word and/or blogging about this poll and its results.

I firmly believe we can take back our government if we make our candidates aware of these results. I believe we can affect change if we write about these points and ask others to do the same. I will post this on every forum I belong to, every blog that I write. I will be attending the Democracy for America convention being held in San Diego, July 13th through the 16th. I will be raising awareness of this poll there. I am quite the loud mouth when I am worked up about something. I enjoy hearing my own voice when there is something important to be said. I ask that you, my dear reader, do the same in your own way. We need to flood the blogosphere with this information; we need to make the candidates aware of this poll and its findings. We only have four months left to do it.

(I hate to interrupt Brian’s roll, but ONE hour left — go vote for McNerney. – promoted by jsw)

Democracy for America‘s Grassroots All-Star competition is coming to a close in just 2 and a half hours, at 2 PM PST. The top spot has been flipping between Jerry McNerney and Nancy Skinner, both deserving candidates possessed of unquestionable true-blue credentials. The endorsement, however, can only go to one. Of course, my natural tendency is to support McNerney as the home team competitor, but even failing that McNerney would be the best national candidate to receive the endorsement, for two big reasons explained below the fold.

1. The Incumbent Nancy Skinner is running in the MI-9 against, as Skinner champion and Kos diarist GOTV put it yesterday, “Mr. Inertia” Joe Knollenberg. Joe Knollenberg doesn’t do anything. Ever. When was the last time you were outraged over “the Knollenberg Bill”? I can’t think of one. He’s also 72. So basically, while we want to get rid of him, he’s more or less harmless, and close to retirement besides. Rick Pombo in the CA-11, on the other hand, undoubtedly has a place among the congressional pantheon of villains. He’s ambitious, conniving, corrupt as a bastard, and universally acclaimed as the most environmentally rapacious member of the United States Congress (which of course explains why he’s chairman of the house Natural Resources Committee. On top of all that, he’s young (just 45) and already broke his term limits pledge. He’ll be there for a long time, and is already slated to take over the Agriculture Committee in 2008. If we have a choice between hastening the departure of a doddering fool by a few years or nipping the arsenic-tainted bud of a “conservative” mastermind, doesn’t the latter seem the wiser course of action?

2. Positioning The CA-11 is 53/47 Republican, but Jerry McNerney is up by 4 points in the latest poll, despite still lacking name recognition. He’s fighting from a position of strength. Pombo, however, has the corporate backing to launch a counterattack that would overawe Marshal Pétain. Fleets of sewage-laden bombers will soon be plastering Stockton and Pleasanton with every sort of libelous charge you can imagine. When this happens, one of two things will happen. Either McNerney will have the resources to beat back Pombo’s bull charge, or he won’t. Skinner, on the other hand, despite coming from a somewhat more Democratic district (50/50), has not yet seen fit to release any of her internal polling, which suggests to me she hasn’t yet seen any numbers she likes. Skinner is fighting an uphill battle. She may be able to parley additional support into concrete results – or she may not. Name recognition isn’t her problem – she’s a radio host in the district, for Pete’s sake! With McNerney, we know exactly how the money’s going to help him. With Skinner, the race may never get close enough for the money to do anything.

No matter what kind of netroots Dem you are, McNerney’s your man. If all you want is to take back Congress, he’s better positioned to take your support and do just that. If you want to take out one of the most odious men ever to hold a Congressional seat in the bargain, electing Jerry McNerney is a twofer. I wish Nancy Skinner all the best, but not at the expense of Jerry McNerney. Come on, he’s our man!

As the A-1 Commercials say, “It’s just that important.” Vote now. You can’t hear them, but the spotted owls are thanking you.

I like the way Phil
Angelides is thinking:

Vowing to be “pro-business and pro-environment,”
Democratic
gubernatorial hopeful Phil Angelides unveiled a “Clean California” plan
Thursday that seeks to cut the state’s oil consumption by 25 percent
over 10 years.
…
Angelides said that if he is elected governor, he will introduce
legislation to mandate all new vehicles sold in the state be flexible
fuel cars, capable of running on any mix of gasoline and bio-fuels,
such as ethanol.

He said he would also require major oil companies to supply
bio-fuels
at filling stations to match the number of flexible fuel vehicles on
the road.

In addition, Angelides said he would require state and local
governments to purchase vehicles that use alternative fuels, or to buy
efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, when replacing or expanding their
fleets.

Angelides also said he would:

* Seek to shorten commutes and pollution through
smart-growth plans
that place housing near work and transit. He said he would use state
grants, loans and bonds to rebuild and improve neighborhoods in hopes
of avoiding more sprawl. And he would urge the adoption of laws
requiring regional and local general plans that limit sprawl.

* Propose changing sales tax collections to discourage the
practice of
approving large shopping malls and other tax-producing developments to
help cities and towns pay their bills. Angelides said he would seek to
collect and share sales taxes regionally to eliminate competition
between adjoining cities for development and tax revenues.

* Increase partnerships and investments to encourage the
creation of
clean fuels and technology. He said he would provide incentives to
encourage fuel-efficient choices by business and consumers.

California is a huge market for any business, including the
automotive industry.  They can’t afford to ignore the
California market, so changes in the kinds of vehicles they can sell in
California will also change the vehicles they sell throughout the rest
of the United States.

A statewide emphasis on smart development and public-private
development partnerships would be great, and the change in the tax
distribution model is genius.  One of the perverse outcomes of
Proposition 13 is that every locality wants businesses because they
generate tax revenue for the local governments.  Residential
development, by contrast, is a dead-weight loss — under Proposition
13, it’s almost impossible to pay for the services (schools, police,
fire, roads, water, etc.) that residential development needs.

Some market fundamentalists will protest the state’s intervention in the market. They are of course missing two important issues:

1. The state has already intervened in the market by building roads with tax dollars and encouraging sprawl with its development policies. There’s no inherent reason that further policymaking is inappropriate.

2. Sometimes the market is stupid. In particular, the market is impatient, and wants to externalize as many costs as possible. In the case of energy, it’s not obvious that the market will respond to the long-term needs of the American people, as long as the costs of supplying the market (like the military, pollution, and carbon dioxide) can be externalized to the population at large.