SDCDP Chair Jess Durfee Elected to DNC

Congratulations to Jess Durfee, the chair of the San Diego County Democratic Party, who was elected this morning to the Democratic National Committee. The election was part of the California Democratic Party's Executive Board meeting that took place in San Francisco this weekend. Jess, who has been the chair of the SDCDP since 2004, becomes one of 19 California members to the Democratic National Committee beginning in 2009. He also becomes the first DNC member to be elected from San Diego County.

UPDATE:

Over at the California Progress Report, Bill Cavala has a piece about Jess Durfee's election to the DNC this morning. [Link]

More on the Failed Feinstein Censure at last week's CDP meeting

Lucas O'Connor who occasionally posts here at San Diego Politico has a very good piece in the current City Beat recapping the events that transpired in Anaheim.

There were attempts to compromise, however. [John] Hanna, Resolutions Committee member Brian Leubitz and Rules Committee Chair Garry Shay worked behind the scenes to, as Leubitz described, "pass a resolution that would have sent a clear message that Sen. Feinstein needs to work harder to communicate with the
Democratic Party and the base of our party." But pressure from party officials and an uncompromising pro-censure group scuttled any efforts to pass a conciliatory resolution.[Link]

The Feinstein episode in Anaheim is another example of the continuing tension that has been building between grassroots activists and CDP establishment. I'll have more to say on this in a later post.

Open letter to Chairman Art Torres

Via Calitics:

An open letter to Chairman Art Torres, Regarding Party consultant Bob Mulholland's published insults

Dear Chairman Torres,

I am writing out of deep concern over public comments made by a consultant to the California Democratic Party.

You are likely aware that I co-authored and submitted the resolution to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein. Just after the close of this weekend's Executive Board General Assembly, I was made aware of an article regarding this resolution, which appeared in the November 16 issue of the newspaper The Guardian. It contained the following reference to Bob Mulholland, identifying him as "a campaign adviser to California Democrats.":

Mulholland blasted the bloggers and activists supporting the censure resolution as "fringe" and "pre-nursing home". "The Democratic party's purpose is to remind armchair activists that the duty is to elect a Democrat to the White House so we can end the Iraq mess", he said. "Nothing should get in the way of that." (Emphasis mine)

I hope you observed enough of my actions this weekend, speaking seriously and politely on issues of life and death (including my successful effort on a resolution to return the California National Guard from Iraq), to know that reports that I am ready for the "nursing home" are greatly exaggerated. More importantly, while you and I might have different opinions on the value of the censure resolution, you must agree that I was given a great responsibility in being asked to advance and represent this weighty topic. In fact, I felt honored to be selected as point person for this by the Co-Chairs of the Progressive Caucus (The Party's second largest caucus, its more than 1,000 members alone represent a major fraction of the Party's 3,000 delegates- decidedly not "fringe".) The resolution of censure was endorsed by that caucus, as well as by the Women's Caucus, the Irish-American Caucus, and by the members or executive boards of dozens of chartered Democratic clubs, County Central Committees and activist groups- not to mention over 30,000 citizens who took the trouble to individually sign on for censure.

It's one thing for Mr. Mulholland to wishfully dismiss such numbers as fringe; it's quite another for him to so grievously insult the loyal Party Executive Board representatives and delegates who were exercising their rights within our bylaws.

I've worked closely with many of these Party members- at phone banks, on bus trips to get out the vote in Arizona, etc. We've organized major efforts to protect the vote and the environment. I doubt that the featured speakers of the Election Protection forum that I initiated, including Rep. Maxine Waters, now-Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and Stephen Rohde (past President of the ACLU of Southern California), would call me an "armchair activist". Nor would the other volunteers at Ohio Democratic HQ in 2004. You also saw Dr. Jo Olson address the Assembly on her successful resolution for single payer health care; Susie Shannon, who spoke of her tireless efforts as an advocate against poverty; and Marcy Winograd, who authored the language of the Party's new resolution on voting systems. These three were all early endorsers of the resolution to make Senator Feinstein adhere to core Party principles; they are not armchair activists.

I shouldn't have to prove the bona fides of these Party members. But even if Mr. Mulholland's comments referred only to unaffiliated activists and bloggers, our Party consultant has ridiculed and insulted the national leaders and all the members of MoveOn, Progressive Democrats of America, the Courage Campaign, and the many other groups who endorsed this censure of Senator Feinstein. As if that wasn't enough, Mr. Mulholland also managed to insult the elderly.

The situation begs the question, why did Bob Mulholland say this? Was he ordered to say such things? Or was this just his usual M.O., as profiled in another Guardian article, which began: "Bob Mulholland is the US Democrats' leading dirty trickster." Regardless, I wish to state, on behalf of all the good people I may claim to represent, that his language is unacceptable. Given the Party's recent resolution on decorum, these inappropriate, insulting comments from a Party mouthpiece are especially ironic, and should have the Party leading the charge to rectify this situation.

Allow me to note that, besides believing that our elected (and endorsed) Democrats should be held accountable to Party principles, I believe their frequent failure to represent public and constituent sentiment is our Party's greatest problem. I've been asked, Wouldn't censure give the Republicans ammunition to use against us? I reply that no one could do more to lower our Congressional ratings than the Party has already done itself, by its failure to stand up to Bush- especially on civil liberties and Iraq. Chairman, if you want to get out the vote, start with the fact that we give people very little reason to register or vote Democratic; that factor trumps a million phone banks. Perhaps you've never seen emails from those saying that votes such as Senator Feinstein's vote for Mukasey have forever sundered them from the Democrats.

The Party's strategy of supporting Democrats - no matter what - is killing us. Likewise, the demonization of those who disagree with the Party line, as exhibited by Bob Mulholland, is counterproductive. I believe the CDP should seriously reconsider the face it presents to the public, and its policy of paying Bob Mulholland to be our
advisor and frequent spokesperson. His vision, and the Party's reflex action to circle the wagons, may win individual election battles, but it's losing the wider war. At the least, he - and the Party - owe a lot of good people a very serious public apology.

Respectfully yours,
Michael Jay
Delegate, 42nd AD

Feinstein censure killed; Courage Campaign camera blocked

The following video was produced by the Courage Campaign regarding last weekend's events at the CDP E-board. In my opinion, this fight over the DiFi censure resolution at the E-board meeting, is the opening skirmishes in the battle for who is going to be the next Chair of the CDP.

Wither San Diego? Part I

Democrats have held the majority in Sacramento for over a decade and in that time; San Diego has not been well served.

With the introduction of term limits, the Speaker’s Office has become a revolving door. The exodus of qualified policy staff, and the state of the Speaker’s Office of Majority Services (SOMS), went from being the “Praetorian Guard” to the Keystone Cops in a rather short period of time.

As such, the thinking among Sacramento Democrats became very short term and cyclical focused on the following question: What do we need to do to maintain the majority and the Speaker for the next cycle?

In this environment, the survival of the status quo became paramount. Thus deal-making takes on an increasing prominent role. Therefore, anyone or any region which could disrupt the current balance of powers needs to be placed in check or gotten out of the way, at least until the next election cycle in over.

As the second largest city in the state, I have wondered why, San Diego is not treated as such in Sacramento. IMHO, here’s one reason: It makes sense for the leadership in Sacramento to marginalize areas like San Diego, San Jose, and the Inland Empire at the expense of promoting Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

The obvious answer is that there are more Democrats in these two areas so they deserve the lion’s share of the spoils. I won’t argue that, but I would challenge the assumption that the other areas should fall by the wayside.

San Jose is bluer than San Diego and the I.E. is wall-to-wall red, which is why I think San Diego deserves attention as the next battleground.

What makes San Diego so special? We are the largest city in California with a Republican mayor. There is a very good chance of a gay Republican being elected to city council and the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 78th district is a Latino former police chief. In a nutshell, San Diego is in danger of becoming the launching pad for the next generation of Republican statewide candidates.

We need all the help we can get, and this requires Sacramento Democrats to get out of the box they’ve placed themselves into and actually start doing things differently, to challenge Republicans in this area. The standard response is that’s what the party is for.

As a San Diegan who has watched Sacramento air-drop staffers and pour money into the 78th AD over the last three election cycles all to be destroyed by an above average Republican operation, all I can think is that if Sacramento wants to win here, they’re not lacking in resources or money. What they seem to lack is the temerity to try something different.

From a negotiating perspective, I can’t help but think it makes perfect sense to keep San Diego on the outs. So long as San Diegans are fighting for control of their own city and county, they won’t look to the Assembly or State Senate for much. It’s almost as if Sacramento is willing to surrender San Diego and other places like the I.E. as wastes of money in poor campaign operations, while they shore up Democrats in safe seats elsewhere in the state.

So where does this leave those who life in the fastest growing areas of the state? I guess in the hands of the mega-churches, which seem to be the only body doing any outreach of significance.
-TQ