(Full disclosure:  I’m an elected DSCC delegate, thanks to constructive nagging in 06 from the Calitics crew, and I’m an alternate to the RCDCC as soon as I’m properly sworn in.  I’m on the board of Democrats of the Desert, a chartered CDP club, and of the ACLU Desert Chapter.

At Netroots Nation, NYBrian and hekebolos had a terrific panel on getting involved with your local Democratic Party.  Most of us have plenty to say on that subject, and in my region the Riverside County Democratic Central Committee takes its share of criticism from the local clubs and activists.   But this year, we have plenty to applaud, and I want to share the work that the RCDCC is doing to support our current candidates, and those coming up.  The board has several new members, and the new chair is making everyone work, work, work.

Crossposted at dkos.

We’re registering voters, building a strong Democratic bench, and supporting our brilliant set of candidates this season:  Manuel Perez in the 80th Assembly District, Art Guerrero for the 37th SD, Julie Bornstein in the CA-45th, and Barack Obama for President.   This is a traditionally red county, but the local Democrats are organized across clubs and across campaigns to make the most of this cycle and every one after.

Betty McMillion, the new Chair, has fostered an ambitious voter registration drive (hat tip to Suzan Wilkinson, who spearheaded the club coordination) with 51 sites around Riverside County.  For the week of Sept 1-6, Democratic volunteers registered 375 Democrats, 48 Republicans (well, it’s the law), and 58 Other.    We are tracking the progress of each site, and readjusting resources to maximize Democratic registration.   Anyone who shows an interest in volunteering for one of the races gets sent straight to that campaign office.  

The local party, for the first time in memory, also interviewed nonpartisan candidates for local races, and endorsed 33.  We’re building a strong farm team, and giving rookie candidates preliminary support and training on GOTV, fundraising, and stump speeches.  We’re solidly behind Manuel Perez, Art Guererro,  Julie Bornstein, and Barack Obama, and looking to the future as well.

Every year we celebrate the memory of Gary Bosworth, local Democratic activist extraordinaire, by honoring an activist of the year, and a volunteer from each club.  (This year’s celebration is this Saturday, and my club is honoring Carole Sumner Krechman for her professionalism and commitment to our fundraising for three solid years.)   The money raised goes toward building the local party, and this year that means supporting candidates with media buys.  

This diary courtesy of Betty’s strong urging, as she wants the local party to get online and into the blogosphere.   I couldn’t agree more.  This is one of those pleasant episodes where the System wants us to take them on, so if you’re local to the Palm Springs area, Betty has a job for you.

I think Gary would be thrilled to see where Riverside County Democrats are this year.

In a diary Robert wrote this morning, a commentor “Sane Democrat” unleashed a troll-worthy response of how Democrats are dependent upon a few voting blocs: Millionaires, Gays, Welfare recipients, and State/municipal workers. Of course he is wrong on the underlying statement that we are dependent upon these voting blocs, but we do have the support of those voting blocs.  I was suspicious of his categorization, so I thought I would take a peek at the data. You know the real facts and all. Luckily, the Field Poll recently (7/24/08) released a poll of the generic Congressional ballot and the crosstabs are available via CapitolAlert here.

The thing is, Democrats have the support of all but a very few voting blocs in the state. I’ll rattle them (mostly)  off here:

the egregiously poor, the working poor, the middle class, the upper middle class, the wealthy, Whites, Asians, African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, the employed, the unemployed, renters, homeowners, high school graduates (or less), trade school graduates, college graduates, postgraduates, union members, non-union members, super liberals, mildly liberals, middle of the roaders, youngens, young-ish folks, middle aged, seniors, married Californians, divorced, never marrieds, people in LA, people in the SF Bay Area, other NorCal folks, people in the Central Valley, women, men, and, oh yeah, Democrats.

phew! That’s a lot of voters who prefer Democrats. The list of voters who prefer Republicans: San Diego/Orange County (within the MoE), Other South (within MoE), strong and moderate conservatives, Protestants (within MoE), and Born-again Christians (within MoE), and oh, yeah, Republicans.

Ordinarily, you would say that we should have 2/3, if not more, of the Legislature. Unfortunately, if you are bothered by such things, we have clumped ourselves in such a manner so that we live almost exclusively with like-minded people. Thus, Republicans congregate in certain regions, as do Democrats, and drawing maps where we can win, say 80% of the seats, is tough, if not impossible. But, I’ll spare our readers of another lecture on redistricting other than to sayNo on Prop 11.

Wow, it’s a good time to be a Democrat; now we need to consolidate and expand these leads through grassroots action.  Oh sure, I guess you elected officials can come along for the ride…

For the last few years, I’ve been quite involved in the CDP.  I care deeply about the California Democratic Party and the tactics and policies that it pursues. I know that this Party can be a vehicle for real fundamental progressive policy change at all levels of government. However, we have a wide range of obstacles in front of us in the coming years to ensure that we strengthen our Party for the challenges of the next generation. That is why I have decided to run for vice-chair of the California Democratic Party.

As Democrats, we are fortunate. We needn’t concern ourselves with suppressing any voting blocs or hiding from our positions. The simple truth is that when the people come out to vote, we win. But turnout operations require people, thus we must become a truly people powered party. In word and deed. We need to continue the work of the neighborhood leader program, and build upon our recent successes. We need to register more voters, and then make sure they get to the polls.  That much we all know, but getting all that done requires a people-powered machine of volunteerism.

We must engage the grassroots of the party, and throw open the doors of the California Democratic Party.  It is increasingly clear that if we are to truly build a people-powered party that we need more transparency at all levels within the CDP. If we are to ask people to volunteer for our campaigns, shouldn’t they know what they are signing up for? It’s simply a matter of motivation, people are more likely to dedicate their time, effort, and resources to a party that explains their strategy to them.  This CDP should be of, by, and for grassroots Democrats as we attempt to ensure our collective success.

This people-powered party shouldn’t simply exist to serve a legislative caucus or any particular donor, but rather to ensure that the collective action of thousands of grassroots Democrats can be heard.  This means truly opening up ourselves to introspection.  It means reviewing our processes to ensure that we are an institution that is seeking the best solution rather than the easy solution. It means recalibrating ourselves to overcome inertia in the service of positive change. After all, if there is one thing that term limits have taught us, it is that incumbency is ephemeral, values are permanent.

But reform is a two-way street.  In order to build a truly people-powered party, we must follow up by building a program to increase donations to the party from grassroots activists. As transparency can increase activism, it can also increase fundraising.  While nobody expects to compete with presidential candidates, the growth of online donations from Howard Dean to Barack Obama shows that there is money there for those who speak clearly and openly of their beliefs. The same is true of the CDP .  Grassroots donations will not come until the grassroots activists are completely assured that their money will be spent wisely and for their intended purpose of supporting Democratic values.  This is not an overnight process, but rather a long process of growing relationships and building trust.

One way of supporting those Democratic values is to invest resources to expand the reach of our Party and fully implement our 58-County Strategy. Despite any conventional wisdom to the contrary, we are capable of growing the Party all across the state.We should encourage the growth of our Democratic County Central Committees and support their party-building efforts, whether they be volunteer voter registration drives or the hiring of regional field organizers.  Furthermore, we need to field candidates everywhere, because, as Howard Dean said, we can’t expect votes unless we ask for them.  We needn’t limit ourselves to the Coast, because despite the attacks that our leveled against us, we are right.

We are right that we can’t sell our civil liberties for a false promise of Big Brother providing us security. We are right that we all deserve access to health care without the concern of going broke (and then losing our homes to foreclosure). We are right that climate change presents to us a major and immediate challenge. We were right that Iraq was a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged. And we are right to provide the troops with all that we have promised, including quality health care and quality education when they return. Because despite the foolhardy nature of the mission, they have served admirably.  We are right that California, and the nation, need clean, publicly-owned, and trustworthy elections. And we are right that all Californians should be free to marry the one that they love.

We already have the capacity to make this a people-powered party. All the tools are already here. It’s simply a matter of will. Together we can build this CDP into our CDP .  Over the coming months I hope to talk to any delegates and as many interested Democrats as possible to discuss these challenges to the CDP in more detail.  I do not take this lightly. I have considered this for a long time, and feel that I can provide value to the CDP in the role of vice-chair. My experience with Calitics has given me a catbird seat view of the issues presented to the CDP.  And I am confident that my education and experience as a lawyer and a policy analyst will be an asset to the party. I have experience working for and against statewide propositions, and understand the good, bad, and ugly of California politics.  I have high expectations for this party and know that we will always have more work to do.  I’m ready to do some of that work.  If you have questions, let me know. Email me at brian AT calitics dotcom, and I’ll get back to you promptly. And if you’re going to be in Denver, well, I’ll do my best to speak to as many Californians as possible.

Bio: Brian Leubitz runs Calitics.com, the leading California progressive blog covering California politics and policy. He holds a law degree from the University of Texas and a Master of Public Policy (M.P.P) from the Goldman School at The University of California, Berkeley. After practicing law in San Francisco, Brian transitioned into politics and launched Calitics .com in 2005.  He has worked on several campaigns in the state, including the Yes on 93 (term limits reform) and the No on 98/Yes on 99 (eminent domain and property rights) campaigns. He currently is a member of the Democratic State Central Committee, serves on the CDP’s resolutions committee, and is on the boards of the San Francisco Young Democrats and the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.

I’ve been mulling this around in my head for a few days.  Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, “We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information.”

The only article specifically mentioned in the July 31 letter was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article cited “sources familiar with the probe,” a broad term that could encompass federal agents, defense attorneys and people who have been questioned […]

On Friday, the day after the congressional letter was sent, a Wall Street Journal article said the investigation into Perata “gained momentum over the past year.” The article’s details were attributed to anonymous people “close to the defense,” who said Perata’s longtime political consultant, Sandi Polka, was granted immunity to compel her to answer questions.

(Here’s that SF Chron article mentioned in the letter.)

The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense.  In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts.  After the initial explanation of “We’re the CDP and we can do what we want,” a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ’s efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats.  A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation.  But it’s Conyers’ participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern.  I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn’t simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California.

Of course, let’s look at what the letter is actually alleging.  It’s not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata.  That may well be true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce.

Let’s now look at what this does NOT suggest:

• It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not.  Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself:

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills.

The arrangement, apparently legal, allows the Senate leader to solicit unlimited funds for his own political agenda without having to detail how the money is spent.

“He may have found a loophole in the Political Reform Act that needs to be closed,” said attorney Bob Stern, a co-author of the state’s Political Reform Act who now runs the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

Which leads me to point 2:

• There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point.  While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership.  They haven’t even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge – it’s currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that’s doubtful to come off.

It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department’s case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer.

• The CDP’s Rules Committee is going to be having a meeting to discuss, primarily, the CDP’s Endorsement Process on August 17. It’s a system that truly needs reform.

• A quick reminder about the CDP’s Rural Caucus Questions for the Chair Candidates. The time has been extended out to August 15th. They will send the questions to all of the candidates for Chair.

• Some funny stuff from the Prop 8 Donor roll. For months there have been no donations from Chino Hills, and then on July 24, there were 3 donations of $5,000+. Then on July 28, 2 more $5K+ donations.  Guess what else happened the next day? Yup, an earthquake centered in Chino Hills.  If you follow your typical right-wing logic, isn’t this the deities being enraged with Prop 8?  Just sayin’

Anything else?

[UPDATE] by Robert – I will be on KRXA 540 AM tomorrow morning at 8 to discuss California politics, including Arnold’s latest act of right-wing desperation.

 you’re such a pushover — i know its HARD work bein’ a dem 🙂

John Rapf wrote:

Too much for one reading.  I cut to the end.  I agree.   Off to the bar! – JR

—– Original Message —–

From: Becky Curry

To: John Rapf ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:42 PM

Subject: Re: L’ affair du Singh and Feinstein Censure

i agree w/the whole gabriel thing  – he is doing nothing to foster party building — he’s really mad about something, and feinstein just happens to be the target d’jour.

ooooh more french 🙂

however, while i think that we get distracted sometimes by the resolution of the moment and I think  this feinstein thing is the biggest waste of time i can imagine,  (at times i feel like it’s a way to distract us about where to put this word or that word in order to keep us from focusing on the big picture and allowiing people get lost in the minutiae of the process)

People are losing focus. Feinstein has a good record on most of the practical stuff I care about.

If we are not faulting Obama for sliding on this one, what’s the percentage in getting our knickers twisted over her  unsurprising  and predictable positions regarding ‘national security’ and ‘terrorism’?

However, I diverge from John about being an activist regarding issues and the policy that results.

I believe it is extremely important for local dem clubs to be activists about issues – issues and policy are what make us Democrats, not candidates who are nice and make us feel good.

And I believe it is up to us to let our elected people know where we stand on issues – we elect them, this is not a feudal system.

Those issues drive our candidates  and drive the activism behind a candidate,  you know, that stuff that gets them elected?

Our job is to reach out and carry the democratic message and policies to the peeps and put candidates forward who will

embody our policies and provide solutions to what we know are  the issues that need addressing.

We have been working in LC on single payer health care for close to two years, we have followed legislation, written letters, we have gone to rallys with our labor folks, we have  hosted forums, networked w/retirees, other dem groups, we called big time b.s on the ‘compromise’ that our State Dem leadership tried to cram down our throats early in the year.

We have instigated a campaign that is spreading out, to have citizens call upon their local elected jurisdictions to actually DO THE MATH, and see what the savings would be to taxpayers if California passed single payer.

Sheila Kuehl walks on water as far as i’m concerned (and i bet she’s nice and she does make me feel good 🙂 )

We have written numerous ltte to the local media, staking out our ground as dems on the issue, we brought “sicko” to our teeny little commercial theater by working with many other groups in the county, to packed houses for several showings a day for 4 days i may add.

i would venture to say that if anyone asked who has done the most to bring the message of single payer  and a modicum of understanding about the issue, into the mainstream conversation, in LC  they would say ‘the local democrats’

Same with the war, while we dont spend all month every month focusing on activism, we feel we must stake out the territory and define the ISSUE as democrats — and sometimes it comes to us in the form of actions from other dem orgs.

LC endorsed and wrote to all our federal legs, urging them to consider endorsing the responsible plan 3 months ago.

i’m glad to see the uber liberals in alameda county catching up 🙂

In order to define ourselves, frame our message, and take control of the dialog we must take positions on issues.

Same w/the SS privatization scam in 2005, we packed Mikey’s pro forma forum — he was stunned to see that people actually were paying attention. We knew he would do the right thing, but we wanted him to know how much it meant to actual people that he do that right thing.

Because i think the candidate needs to pull the cart, carrying policies we want, not the other way around.

He doesnt just say. “i’m a dem, we’ll figure all that policy stuff out later, you guys just jump on please”

yes i have to compromise many times in order to actually win at the ballot box, in order to foster dialog w/my electeds, in order to formulate a position that as many people can buy into as possible, but any negotiation begins from the high ground and i have every intention of staying there, until i am dragged off.

If I dont  have a starting place, i’m (and we are) lost — or spineless, or whatever the disaffected want to call us these days.

For instance this FISA thing is absolutely incomprehensible, but I realize the sad fact that many of our Dems, our party’s standard bearer included, are covering their butts in a corporate reality, perhaps not of their making, but they certainly whistled past the graveyard many times, in order to be put in the positions they are in now. They have  nowhere to go, but to take cover and play the game and hope no one notices — too much, again, …

But that’s not even the problem…the telecoms wont be prosecuted – so what?

Who  lost out when the s&ls collapsed in the 80’s? A few were made examples of.

How many women workers died in the Triangle shirtwaist  factory fires at the turn of the century?

How many miners were killed in during the Cripple Creek mining wars in Colo by coroporate thugs?

The history of this country is the rank and file working class sacrificing  their liberties, their rights, not to mention life and limb for an inch of progress.

Nothing to see here, move along —  in the 200 plus years of this country, it has ever been thus.

This is nothing new, and i’m inured to it, I have read my Howard Zinn.

The ISSUE that is being totally overlooked is the SPYING!!! — sure let the bigwigs off the hook for breaking the law, happens every day, but the fact remains that these congress critters  are either too dumb (which I doubt) or think that we’re too dumb (which i suspect) to know that the  4th amendment is on life support, barely breathing.

Oh dont worry, i hear, when the Dems get in it will all be fixed — as my nineteen year old nepew would say, “uh seriously dude?” — not unless we take the issue on head on and fight for it.

Issues and policy,  not candidates,  not personalities, issues and policy– and upholding the US constitution is a pretty huge issue w/me and a policy i’d like my elected Dems to adhere to.

I think it’s Martini time! 🙂

John Rapf wrote:

Some thoughts regarding the recent comments to & from Gabrial Singh that I think kind of cross flowed between the Rural Caucus and TakeBackRedCalifornia….

First, regarding the process that TBRC follows to decide whom to support, obviously temperament must be an important attribute.  If an individual has not mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable, then that person probably would not serve our interests well in government.  One reason I support Jeff Morris for Congress and that I hope TBRC will support also, is that having watched Jeff as a Supervisor I know he has an ability listen and work with people he does not agree with.  Government in a democracy cannot function otherwise.  Jeff will make an excellent Congressman, whereas Gabrial’s talents are probably better suited as an op-ed writer.

Regarding the Feinstein censure, folks who know me know that I take a dim view of these things.  If we value diversity, then we should recognize that it is not just racial, ethnic, religious or etc., but also ideas and perspective.  Some of the most important lesson’s I’ve learned have come from people who come at problems from a much different viewpoint than I.  I may be wrong, but Senator Feinstein has received more votes, both in numbers and percentage, than any other Democrat in recent CA politics.  She must be doing something right.  I also think that she probably votes pretty consistently, but certainly not always, the way Progressive Democrats would like.

As constituents, if we have disagreements with an elected politician then we should as individuals let that person know.  As Rural Caucus and TBRC members we should be looking to build a farm team of progressive politicians that might better reflect our respective organizations values and goals.  The next time Feinstein runs, then folks who feel strongly enough should promote a candidate to challenge her in the primary.

As we enter into the Fall election campaign we have, in my view, a historic opportunity to elect Democrats all the way down the ticket.  That should be our complete focus.  We should not be spending one iota of time on Censure or Responsible Plan (another one making the rounds) Resolutions.

John Rapf

Northern V-P CDP Rural Caucus

Area 1 Team Coordinator, Trinity,

Obama for America Campaign ’08

Si se puede!

CDP Rural Caucus  not only wants to hold our current legislators feet to the fire. We want to move the Party forward in some new directions. Please visit our website link in the Caucus section of www.cadem.org to participate in drafting our Questionaire for ’09 CDP Chair candidate.or join our Yahoo Newsgroup to continue the dialogue.

Jhotchkiss2- Moderator CDPRC Newsgroup