Why I Support Newsom: Innovative Approach to Health Care

Mayor Gavin Newsom took a very creative approach to health care in San Francisco.

One of the biggest barriers to state and local healthcare reform is a federal statute called ERISA. The statute precludes state or local governments from mandating that employers offer particular benefits, including health care, to their employees. The rationale for this policy was to prevent a patch-work system of local requirements. Without local regulations to worry about, employers would only have to establish a single healthcare program to cover all of their workers nationwide.

But ERISA doesn’t require employers to provide healthcare, and it preempts states or local governments from doing so. The unfortunate result is stagnation. Localities haven’t served as the laboratories of democracy and haven’t explored new ways of providing health care. In the marketplace, health insurance is given only to those who can demand it. It’s given to the white collar, the skilled workers, and those represented by unions who can bargain on their behalf. The transitory workers, the restaurant employees, and the unorganized have to brave life without health insurance. Local governments have been enfeebled and were prevented from taking meaningful steps to require employers to act responsibly toward their employees.

Instead of throwing up his hands in defeat, and letting ERISA be an excuse for the persistence of uninsured San Francicans, Newsom took a creative approach to the problem. San Francisco couldn’t mandate that employers provide specific types of health insurance, so a new program, Healthy San Francisco, was structured to require employers to pay a “minimum wage” for health care.

The requirements are pretty minor - employers must pay between $1.17 to $1.85 for health care for each employee, for every hour worked. Larger companies have to pay on the higher end of the scale, and small employers are exempt. Most employers that previously provided health insurance already met this minimum expenditure requirement. Those that didn’t spend sufficient amounts for employee health care paid the difference to the City, which used those fees to provide subsidized health care for San Franciscans who didn’t receive health care from their employers.

A panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Healthy San Francisco against a challenge that argued the health care minimum wage violated ERISA. Healthy San Francisco survived ERISA’s ban on local mandates because, as the court explained, the program was “only concerned with the dollar amount of the payments an employer makes toward the provision of such benefits,” instead of mandating specific types of employer-sponsored health care plans. The court described as series of options for employers to satisfy their obligations including only paying for only preventive care, or providing health care only through an on-site clinic.

It has yet to be decided whether the full Ninth Circuit will review the panel’s decision. And the plaintiffs, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, has vowed to make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if they are denied again by the Court of Appeals. Healthy San Francisco isn’t a perfect solution. Some employers don’t provide health insurance at levels that a lot of us would consider adequate. But in the context of ERISA, where mandates on employer health benefits are prohibited, there are limited policy options. It was Newsom who was willing to experiment with a new health care policy that creatively fit within those limits.

The City of San Francisco, and all localities, shoulders the costs of its uninsured when people use emergency rooms as their primary health providers. It’s a more efficient use of city resources to provide real health care, instead of only reactionary, emergency care when conditions turn from chronic to catastrophic. Even if the healthcare minimum wage financing program is invalidated by the courts, Healthy San Francisco will not be left by the wayside, and the City will employ other alternatives. “It may set us back,” Newsom has told the New York Times, “but it’s not going to end this program.”

Truth Hurts

Today's Sac Bee Article:

On Sunday, Republican Party delegates passed a resolution to deny funding for campaign mailers for the six lawmakers who voted with the Democrats on the budget package.

Asked to respond to the resolution, Schwarzenegger said: "First of all, I would not be too concerned about that if I would be those candidates because the Republican Party has no money anyway..."

The Noblest Motive is the Public Good

Or so it says on seal of our County. However I wish the Board of Supervisors would follow more regularly. I'm speaking of course of the Board's failure to allow services to twist in the wind and not have foresight to think of new solutions for the county budget. Apparently the Board didn't get the memo that it's now the 21st Century and looking to the old tired solutions of contracting out and asking our lowest paid social workers, elder care nurses and abused child councilors to get even less pay may not be the best way for County to serve the public good. I mean if this is how they treat their workers how do you think they'll treat us? Oh and by the way they still won't give up their perks like this and they gave their Chief Administrative Officer a 4% raise when the county began to talk up their budget woes. Where's the public good in that?

Thoughts about the Budget Troubles

Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) has done something quite remarkable. He was able to roll his party, the Governor, and the opposition majority party to give him three constitutional amendments for his vote to pass the California budget.

The fact that this charade in democracy was allowed to drag on as long as it did is conclusive evidence that governing the Golden State has now become politically impossible.

Let’s look at the facts:

Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) was able to blackmail the state into giving Orange County $35 million by threatening to withhold his vote. Had Willie been Speaker, Correa would have been told to go frack himself. He would be a dead man to the caucus until the next round of elections when he certainly would have faced a challenger that could take him out. Even SEIU agreed to cuts and this wasn’t enough for Correa.

So much for intra-party discipline. Honestly, if you can’t keep you own members in check then what is it exactly that you are leading? With Bass looking at her next job, it is no wonder that the Assembly Dems are looking more like a shell than a body.

Speaking of shells, Arnold is not looking so hot these days. As the Republican Candidate for Boxer’s seat, he’s got to lead something more substantial than his own party which won’t even give him the time of day. It must be frustrating being a Republican these days; the candidates that are the most likely to head the tickets are the least faithful to the grassroots.

And the Republicans deserve what’s coming. I hope their No-Tax God has been satisfied with this sacrifice. They’ve caped a leader in one house for trying to (gasp) compromise and show no signs of doing anything to dig themselves out of their 20th Century ideological pit.

Well, there’s no better way to remain a minority party than by constantly looking back to the glory years of the past. And, in looking forward, if the price to pass a budget are constitutional amendments then that is too high a price to pay.

If there was ever a reason to get rid of the 2/3rds requirement, now is the time. But we’ve seen how responsive the State has been to addressing real issues once the heat dies down. But this stalemate has permeated into the public consciousness. Let us hope that it is not as quickly forgotten because we have to do this again next year.

Message from John Burton: Majority Vote Budget Now

Dear Friends,

If the last 48 hours has proven nothing else, we can no longer allow Republicans to hold the people of California hostage and therefore dictate to the Democratic majority the terms under which the budget is passed.

California should join the 47 other states who don't require a supermajority to pass the budget.

If I am elected as the next Chair of the California Democratic Party, I will make majority vote budget a top priority.

We must also decide our approach to the budget trailer measure sponsored by Republicans known as "the open primary rule", that would allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primary elections - therefore influencing who the Democratic nominee would be.

It's not just for our party - but for the future of California.

John

Facebook and Local Politics

A lot’s been written about national politics and the Facebook generation. President Obama used the internet to organize his supporters in ways never before practiced in a national campaign.

Presidential campaigns are often the proving ground for new political techniques and technologies. But Facebook and other internet tools are also changing politics at a more local level.

San Diego City Councilmember Carl DeMaio recently invited me to be his “friend” on Facebook. I’ve never met Councilmember DeMaio, so we’re not friends in real life. And we’re relatively apart on the political spectrum. (Note that I’m friends with people I disagree with, both in real life and on Facebook. Maybe DeMaio is lots of fun to hang out with and someday we’ll be fast friends, but at the moment, we’re not).

I denied his invitation.

But maybe I should have accepted it. Another progressive Democrat I know accepted DeMaio’s invitation and discovered that the councilmember posted some of his policy ideas through his Facebook profile. The Democrat used Facebook to comment on the policy and thereby directly communicated with an elected representative in City government.

I’ve had a similar experience. In September of 2007, I received a Facebook friend request from California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Before accepting the request, I sent a message in response, asking who I knew on the other end of that Facebook account. Previously, the Facebook requests I had received from political figures were all made by friends of mine from the California Young Democrats, who were managing some elected official’s Facebook account.

The response from Secretary Bowen’s account was in the first person, and it said something like “We haven’t met personally yet, but we have a lot of mutual friends in the California Young Democrats, and your friend [so and so] used to work for my Senate office.”

I very nearly responded with a snarky reply about not breaking character. I was in Sacramento at the time, taking a post-bar exam trip up and down California, reacquainting myself with old friends that I hadn’t seen much during my 3 years in law school at NYU. Coincidentally, I had lunch plans the next day with the very same mutual friend who was once worked for Bowen’s Senate office. At lunch it was explained to me that Bowen actually managed her own Facebook account. I was relieved that I had kept my snark under control.

Not only did I accept Bowen’s friend request, but I responded with an invitation for her to speak to the members of the San Diego lawyers chapter of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal group I helped found after returning to San Diego. Through Facebook, Bowen connected me to her staff scheduler, and in March, she visited our chapter and gave a terrific presentation about protecting voting rights. During her presentation, Bowen mentioned that a few days earlier, someone had used Facebook to report a violation of California’s elections regulations, and that she had directed her staff to investigate the matter.

Both the DeMaio and Bowen examples show how Facebook, and similar tools, can help connect policymakers to the people they serve. Not every elected official can manage their own Facebook profile, but this sort of technology allows alternatives to the staff-insulated communications bubble in which so many politicians live. Even Barack Obama fought to keep his Blackberry, so that he could have connections to the world by means other than his White House staff.

Savvy candidates are following the Obama model and preparing vast, internet-based campaigns. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is currently on a campaign to raise 30,000 online Facebook supporters in 30 days for his gubernatorial bid. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, about 400 people are joining each day. Newsom’s nearest rival for the governorship, at least in the Facebook Primary, is Attorney General Jerry Brown, with a mere 700 Facebook supporters. Newsom supporters can sign up by visiting the Mayor’s Facebook page. (Full disclosure: I am an avowed Newsom fan).

Programs like Facebook allow campaigns to show off their supporters in a very public fashion. Facebook users see news feed stories when their friends become supporters of candidates. When the Newsom campaign announced a planned visit to San Diego next month, they posted an “event” listing on Facebook. Not only does this provide logistical information about when and where the event will take place, but Facebook users can see that over 100 people are planning to attend, and which of their friends will be there. (Again, full disclosure: I invited over half of the 600 people currently listed in the event, but I only invited about 30 of the 100 or so people who’ve RSVP’d as planning to attend.)

Some local political organizations are seeing Facebook as a preferred method of organizing, supplanting more traditional options like email listservs and standalone web pages. The UCSD student group supporting Barack Obama’s presidential bid was organized entirely through a Facebook page. Emails announcing meetings and political actions were sent via Facebook message.

Facebook has an advantage for political organizers because people can see when their friends join a group, which can encourage them to join it too. There’s a potential for a snowball effect. No one knows when you add your email address to a non-Facebook listserv, like by providing an email address on the web page of a political campaign or organization.

The San Diego County Young Democrats have recognized the advantage of maintaining communications with members of their Facebook group, who might not have provided the organization with an email address to receive their weekly email newsletter. Now, the general email newsletter is routinely copied into a separate message to all the members of the local Young Democrats Facebook group. While a lot of people receive the messages twice, young people are increasingly tolerant of superfluous electronic communications.

There’s no doubt that the internet is changing politics and organizing. Not only did the internet bolster Obama’s presidential campaign, but it’s changing how things are done right here in San Diego. I’ve identified some of the recent local trends, but I’m sure there are others. If you have other examples of how the internet has changed the poltical scene in San Diego, please share them in the comments.

UPDATE (3/19/2009): I got a new Facebook request from Carl DeMaio. This time I accepted. We'll see how it goes!

Memo to LOGO

Alot of us are unhappy with Bill Clinton coming to San Diego this weekend and talking at the Manchester. Manchester is a filthy reactionary (and to those who know him, a jerk).

Predictably, Labor Central Council Secretary-Treasurer Lorena Gonzales (LOGO), and her BFF, Todd Gloria issued the meaningless letter this week urging that Clinton not attend. That was an easy letter: all show and no action. Lets see if either of them showup Sunday in the cold and walk the talk.

Lorena should provide us constructive input and guidance on two important labor issues. The proper form of leadsership is not "to stay out of it". What is Lorena's position on:

(a) On the UNITE vs. HERE fight, who is right? Bruce Raynor or John Wilhelm? If she was on the UNITEHERE board, how would she had voted this week?

(b) On the SEIU/Andy Stern vs. SEIU California UHW dispute, who is right? What will Lorena do to insure the labor movement locally will react to these situations? (www.seiuvoice.org/trusteeship for background)

Feinstein Statement on Interior Department Decision to Review Offshore Drilling Policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Statement of Senator Feinstein on Interior Department Decision to Review Offshore Drilling Policy


“This is very good news from the Interior Department. Secretary Ken Salazar today announced that he intends to review the flawed offshore drilling policy of the Bush Administration – and allow the public to share their views.

Californians have long supported protecting our majestic coastline from the dangers of new offshore drilling and, if possible, I intend to testify on their behalf at the public hearing that will be held in my home state.

I look forward to turning the page on the false promise of new offshore drilling -- and instead focus on making the shift to a cleaner and greener energy policy.”

###

Editorials in the News Papers

The New York Times ran an op-ed piece this week suggesting that the financial problems facing modern newspapers could be remedied if they transformed themselves into non-profits and sought endowments.

I like the idea, and we have a model right here in San Diego. The Voice of San Diego is a non-profit that provides the most insightful and detailed news coverage in San Diego. The Union Tribune is a mainstay of any local news reader, but their articles, especially about policy issues, are rarely as in depth as those written by the VOSD.

I don’t want to beat up on the UT here. Their model is different. They have a different audience. They report on more news, and serve a broader audience, so their coverage is usually wider, if not as deep.

But I didn’t realize that the VOSD’s model precluded them from making endorsements of candidates or issues. From the NYT article:

One constraint on an endowed institution is the prohibition in the same [tax code] law against trying to “influence legislation” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

I was aware that the VOSD doesn’t make endorsements. I didn’t realize it was an issue based on their tax status.

But I’m glad the VOSD doesn’t make endorsements. I don’t think we should politicize news. News should be pure, or as pure as it can be. It should be an honest and unbiased explanation of the facts, as they are.

With the political process as it is, there will never be a shortage of people trying to influence the news. There’ll be spin, and press releases, tipsters and exclusives. There are enough forces from outside of a newspaper that will attempt to shape and harness the truth that is the news.

I don’t want the news to have to deal with another force, from within newspapers themselves. I don’t want reporters or newsrooms to worry that their editors and publishers will pressure them to politicize their coverage. News shouldn’t be worried about conforming to a newspaper’s official endorsement or political views.

Endorsements are not the root of all evil in news. There are biased news outlets that don’t officially endorse candidates. And news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times provide excellent news coverage, while simultaneously publishing editorials and endorsements that are predictably biased.

But I would rather that newsrooms didn’t have any bias, or any hint of bias. I would prefer them to just report on the news. I believe bias infects everything, and that it’s not something from which people can ultimately escape. But steps can be taken to minimize bias. Reporters have a hard enough time getting the news right, discovering the truth from the spin, without also having to navigate the politics of their own newsroom.

Endorsements by newspapers are valuable to candidates, sure. But I don’t think they’re that valuable to news consumers, the readers of newspapers. From the New York Times:

While endowed newspapers would need to refrain from endorsing candidates for public office, they would still be free to participate forcefully in the debate over issues of public importance. The loss of endorsements seems minor in the context of the opinion-heavy Web.

As a reader, I would much rather newspapers reported on the campaigns of candidates, instead of waiting until the last week of the election cycle to make an endorsement. I would prefer newspapers let the reader make a judgment, instead of printing which candidates received the vote of a majority of the paper’s editorial board.

Newspaper editors may well have a certain expertise and familiarity with local issues and politics, so their opinions may be valuable information for reasoning voters. But an important purpose of a newspaper is to disseminate a newspaper’s expertise and familiarity with local issues. If a newspaper is doing its job right, then the readers should know nearly as much about local political issues as the newspaper’s editors.

Whether endowed or for-profit, I think the newspaper endorsement is problematic. I suspect they’re here to stay, and I certainly don’t want to suggest that my favorite candidates should hesitate to seek a major newspaper endorsement. But if newspapers sought to do something else with their ink, like provide more news, or even if they printed transcripts of interviews with candidates, I’d be a happier news reader.

Gimme a break!

Yeah and I'm not talking about the 80's sitcom starring Nell Carter and that adorable Joey Lawrence. So I guess the geniuses in the Chargers front offices decided to get Charger fans to start panicking by starting to market themselves to football fans in the OC and LA County. So now every evening news program led off with this amazing news. Now just because the City of Industry decided to a approve a $500 billion bond sale for a stadium doesn't mean that the Chargers are going. I mean have you been to the City of Industry? This is the same city that counted mental patients as part of their population in order to incorporate. (It was either them or Commerce, I forget it's in City of Quartz it's a recommended read) So yeah let's put the Chargers there! I mean really of all the things to worry about; the worst economic crisis in decades (Thanks W and GOP!) Two wars, (again thanks W and GOP) and a state budget crisis (thanks Arnold and GOP!) this is what we focus on? Gimmie a Break!

San Diego Young Dems say Farewell to W at the W!

The San Diego County Young Democrats hosted a huge party to celebrate the inauguration of President Barack Obama last night.

The event was titled “Farewell to W at the W,” and it was held at the W Hotel, in Downtown San Diego. Over 1500 people attended, making it easily the largest inauguration celebration in San Diego.

Photos of the event are posted on the Young Democrats Flickr group page. There are hundreds of photos from the night uploaded, and more are on their way. DiscoverSD.com also has some photos up at their gallery.

By any measure, the event was a home run success. Local television aired promotions for the event, both on the ABC and CBS affiliates, as well as a live promotion the morning of the event on Fox.

By having attendees RSVP online, and by heavily promoting the event, the Young Democrats were able to capture contact information of more than 2500 new people for their general distribution list. These new names will be invited to participate in Democratic social events, political actions, and public service opportunities.

Numerous television stations covered the event. Not only were the cameras covering the excitement and celebrations, but numerous Young Democrats were on camera, explaining that Obama’s message of hope had real significance to them. Event organizers kept on message, and explained that change can happen right here in San Diego through participation with the Young Democrats and other progressive political organizations.

The crowed swelled throughout the night, and gathered at 9 p.m. for a replay of President Obama’s inauguration address. Before the video played, organizers introduced the Young Democrats. The young, fashionable crowd shouted and cheered when organizers announced that in November, local Democrats captured six of eight City Council seats.

UPDATE: Shindy.tv produced a 10 minute clip showcasing the event. It's shared here as well. A number of the board members from the Young Democrats are featured, as well as many happy party-goers.

Steinberg, Bass Respond to Governor's State of State Address

SACRAMENTO – At a joint press conference held Thursday afternoon, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) gave the legislative response to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State Address. Below are President pro Tem Steinberg’s remarks, followed by remarks from Speaker Bass.


Senate President pro Tem Steinberg:

“We stand here together on behalf of our respective houses to tell Californians that we are working hard to find common ground with Republicans and the Governor on a budget solution.

“We all understand what is at stake: California will run out of money if we fail to act. Tax refunds delayed. Job creating construction postponed.

“There is nothing easy about making up a $41 billion shortfall in our state budget.

“We have children to teach. Roads to build. Natural resources to protect. Seniors to care for.

“But we don’t have the money to do everything this year, thanks to a national and international economic crisis that some say is the worst since the Great Depression. In bad economic times many Californians know what it means, in fact, to cut back.

“State Government must do the same, but in a way that does the least damage to public education, to the environment, to the economy and to those most vulnerable protected by our social safety net.

“We have to and we will, throw out the harsh rhetoric in times like these.

“It’s no time for finger-pointing – Californians want and deserve more from us. They expect us to work together to fix the problem and that’s exactly what we are in the midst of doing.

“To the extent that we have real differences with our Republican colleagues or the Governor, there will be policy differences and we will work them out the best we can. We have no choice.

“Like the Speaker, I am still extremely proud that the majority party sent the Governor an $18 billion deficit reduction plan that would have fixed nearly half the budget shortfall and perhaps forestalled the cash crisis.

“And I genuinely believe that our action in that regard, in part has lead to the resumption of Big 5 negotiations and the effort to solve the entire $41 billion problem.

“But I think our action was indicative of where our hearts and minds are at.

“In serious times, you don’t just wait for solutions to fall into your lap – you work overtime to find the solutions.

“So we are working overtime and beyond to find a solution with the Governor and Republican leaders. The Governor is right, the negotiations have been productive, but we need to keep going.

“There really is an opportunity to turn this situation around on a dime.

“Everyone talks about late budgets. When we get this agreement done over the next weeks, we will have then accomplished the earliest budget in the history of California.

“I can’t wait for those couple of weeks to pass and for the legislature and the Governor to come together on a budget agreement because then we can begin focusing on a positive agenda for California.

“We need to tackle the high school drop-out crisis, education, and the economy.

“We need to get a water agreement. Renewable energy. Health care. There’s so many positive issues, so many positive agendas to tackle.

“Let’s put this behind us so that we can get started on all of those things.

“Thank you.”


Assembly Speaker Karen Bass:

“This week we celebrate the birth, 80 years ago today, of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – a man committed to empower those left behind in our society.

“We look ahead next week to the inauguration of Barack Obama – a community organizer with his own record of empowering others– as he becomes the President of the United States.

“Looking back at the life and works of Dr. King, and looking ahead to the values and promise of President Obama, we can see great changes that were won at immense cost and great changes to come – along with the shared sacrifice they require.

“Here in California, the governor’s state of the state address underscored the sacrifices ahead of us in guiding our state through this economic emergency.

“In his address the governor committed to working with the legislature to solve the budget problem, and that’s important.

“Californians want us to negotiate a solution to the budget and avoid the cash crisis. They don’t want school districts to go broke and layoff teachers…they don’t want small business vendors getting IOUs and they don’t want their income tax refunds delayed.

“Democrats have stepped up by passing an $18 billion package of solutions ….we’ve stepped up by cutting our operating budget 10%.... we’ve stepped up by introducing bills to aid unemployed Californians ….we’ve stepped up by introducing a green economic stimulus package that will create more than 40,000 jobs …and we’re stepping up by pursuing foreclosure relief and mortgage reform.

“When the governor and legislature work together as partners, real achievements like AB 32 and the infrastructure bonds get done. The same can happen on the budget.

“One of the lessons we can see in looking back at Dr. King and looking forward to President Obama is that even in tough times, even when there is great challenge and sacrifice, there is also hope and opportunity.

“In the Assembly we look forward to working with the governor to make sure California remains the land of hope and opportunity.”

CDP Chairman Race Over, so what about the Vice-Chairs?

Last week, Alex Rooker dropped out of the race for Chair leaving John Burton unopposed for the top position.

She, like Eric Bauman, decided against taking on Burton and is running for Vice Chair where she is the favorite to win.

It looks like we shall have Vice Chairs Bauman and Rooker who have both expressed an interest in the top position. The question then becomes can they work together without undermining Burton's agenda while positioning themselves as the heir apparent?

This is not an academic question. It is unknown if Burton can, or will, pull the CDP away from Sacramento enough to make a difference in races that are not Assembly or State Senate based. Torres has built up enough frustration through his 14 years as chair that it would be difficult for anyone to resolve this in a single term.

The Vice Chairs under Torres have been little more than window dressing, only trotted out for party functions and photo ops. This is unfortunate because both Bauman and Rooker bring skills (organizational, fundraising, etc.) to the table. It is hoped that Burton can utilize them in a positive manner. After all, the role of the Vice Chair is defined by the Chair the serve.

A little friendly competition can make all the difference four years from now when the next Chairman will be chosen.

CA Gov Race – January 09

It’s never too early to speculate, so let’s cast our runes with an eye on the 2010 Governor’s race:


NEWSOM
The Mayor of San Francisco is not exactly loved but his constituents but too many people find him “hot.” Outside of the Bay Area most Californians associate him with Prop 8 and gay marriage. There is little else in the minds of the public and this gives him a chance to create an identity as the change agent for California. His web presence is innovative and he is a proven fundraiser. He’s young and from a progressive and wealthy bastion but he has never has to run in a race larger than the 232 square miles that make up the city. And at least he has an issue.

VILLAGROSA
The Mayor of Los Angeles is not exactly loved but his constituents but too many people find him “viable.” His Sacramento connections are a double-edged sword. Even though he was Speaker of the Assembly most people do not know what he has done. Unlike Newsom, Villagrosa’s reach is larger, in both geography and population, and, as such, has more hurdles to leap over to make it to the Governorship. There is a reason why electeds coming from San Francisco have historically done better then those out of Los Angeles; LA is too big and you need a larger than life figure to keep it together whereas San Francisco, although more Byzantine in its local politics, is smaller and easier to emerge from. Running a race in LA is not easy and he has done it so he gets nods for being able to manage a large campaign operation. He just needs to get out of the city alive. And figure out a rationale for running.

GARAMENDI
Our Lieutenant Governor is repeating his early 1990s career track making another gubernatorial run inevitable. That time he had a credible youth presence and focused campaign yet he was crushed by the establishment both within and outside the party for Kathleen Brown. Having been yanked out of the way of that cannonball, he rises to run again and has learned, somewhat, from his mistakes. He has been making the rounds with the grassroots fairly consistently and has built up considerable goodwill across the state. It remains to be seen if he can translate this support into a winning campaign. He has mounted a statewide campaign before and did well. So long as he can get over the ghosts of the 1994 campaign, he can be a contender.

ANGELIDES
Oh God no. He’s a great guy, was a kick-ass party chair, and is doing well for himself and good for the cause. But no. His campaign should be seen as a cautionary tale that those who live in the past are doomed to die in the present. His run against Arnold was not going to be easy, but when the campaign runs as if it was 1992, you cannot win. The tactics and efforts of the last Angelides campaign were not as effective in the 21st century as they were in the 20th. No. Angelides can do more for the party and people by not entering this race. For the record, I’m addressing a rumor.

O’CONNELL
In a just world, this man would be our top contender. He’s a great guy, a good leader, and affable enough to be loved by moderate Republicans. But in a universe that gave us W, Arnold, and the 2/3rd vote to pass a budget, all bets are off. This dystopian dimension has rendered his candidacy almost done. Given his competition, he has a slim shot at squeezing through like Davis as the last man standing or the nice guy alternative to the rest, but his signature issue, education, is going to be a tough one for financial reasons to propel him into the finals

BROWN
The thing with Jerry is that his people ooze out from the walls to vote for him. He just has to do say he is running and a campaign will magically appear that will not be very professional but will get bodies to turn out. There are voters who only vote for Jerry. Given the size of baby-boomers as a segment of the population and his name identification, his candidacy automatically becomes real. Republicans love to hate him and his various stints in public office reflect a guy who can win at almost every level. Do not discount him.

THEREFORE:
I think Jerry makes the final and the rest fight over the Obama-change mantle. Newsom is it as it of right now. Villagrosa and Garamendi have not begun full-blown campaigning. Should they, Garamendi could take it if he positions himself as the responsible change agent. Villagrosa needs to make said change happen in LA before he can take it.

WILD CARDS: FEINSTEIN
Event though she has the Intelligence Chair in the US Senate, she is not getting any younger and is thinking of a legacy. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and the grassroots love Boxer so a final run is not out of the question She could take out Jerry and pummel the rest. Only if is she can be coaxed out into streetfight would she lose.

WILDCARDS: WESLEY
He is close to Obama, was part of the California operation, has money, and would be the de facto change agent if he jumps in. The California Obama operation and frustrated party activists would rally to his candidacy. He could take Jerry and be assured of institutional support lining up behind him.

Whats up with the State Chair race?

Greetings, new Democratic blogger here..long time friend, contributor, volunteer and observer of the Democratic Party here, at the local, state and national level...my only purpose is to ask good questions and get us thinking.

One of the most important decisions upcoming is the selection of a new State Democratic Chair. John Burton (of SF and State Senate leadership fame) and Alex Rooker are the two candidates left standing.

What we have accomplished in San Diego has been on our own, with little help from the San Francisco/Walnut Hills axis..why do we want to embrace that now? I realize there is a spike of Burton support here in San Diego, now ...but why, really? Are we hoping for something? Perhaps readers can tag on and answer.

Farewell to W at the W, Obama Inauguration Event

What: Party and celebration for the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
When: January 20, 2009, 7:30 P.M. – 1:30 A.M.
Where: W Hotel, 421 W B St, San Diego, CA 92101
Hosted by: The San Diego County Young Democrats

On the night of January 20th, 2009, the San Diego County Young Democrats are hosting a party at the W Hotel for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The event is expected to be the largest inauguration celebration in the County of San Diego.

As of January 5, 2009, over 350 people have submitted an RSVP for the event. While no RSVP is necessary to attend, an RSVP is encouraged at the Young Democrats website. (http://www.sdcyoungdemocrats.com/).

On the November 4, 2008 election day, the Young Democrats hosted a party to watch election returns at the W Hotel, the same location of the Obama inauguration party. The election night party attracted over 200 people, without the benefit of a coordinated press or media campaign.

“Obama has inspired a huge number of young people to be interested in politics, both nationally, and in San Diego,” said David Gersz, president of the San Diego County Young Democrats. “We wanted to make sure that Obama’s supporters would have a central place to celebrate for this historic night.”

The San Diego County Young Democrats:

The San Diego County Young Democrats is an organization of young people, under the age of 36, who live in the County of San Diego and belong to the Democratic Party. Their members range from activists and concerned citizens, to lawyers, political staff, and elected officials. (http://www.sdcyoungdemocrats.com/).

The Event:

The event is free and open to the public. RSVP’s are encouraged by visiting here: http://www.sdcyoungdemocrats.com.

President Obama’s inauguration speech will be replayed at the event starting at 9:00 P.M..

There will be a cash bar and drink specials throughout the night.

A smart move by Jerry Brown.

California's Attorney General Jerry Brown did a politically smart thing opposing Proposition 8 last week.

Brown is making no secret of his desire to run again for Governor of California. And to some observers, it might seem a foolish, if brave thing to stake out a legal position to overrule the will of a majority of California's voters.

However, Brown isn't yet running in a general election. Instead, the first major hurdle for his return to the Governor's mansion will be the Democratic primary. By supporting marriage equally, Brown is able to publicly display his commitment to equality, garnering support of the progressive and LGBT communities who are important constituencies in the Democratic primaries.

With two terms as Governor under his belt, a mayorship of Oakland, and numerous runs for the United States presidency, Brown already has more name identification than any potential rival, save possibly Dianne Feinstein. But with a crowded and talented field, Brown won't be able to rest on that familiarity to win over a plurality of the party's regulars.

Among others, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is a strong likely rival to Brown for the Democratic nomination. Newsom has a statewide and national profile for ordering San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Newsom's decision may not sit well with all Californians, but it's made him a hero to the LGBT community. Furthermore, support for same sex marriage is quickly becoming a prerequisite for California's Democratic primary voters, and Newsom has the most irrefutable bona fides for supporting marriage equality. He doesn't just support same-sex marriage, he married people.

Brown's decision to oppose Proposition 8 in the courts allows him to try to eat into Newsom's inroads with the LGBT community. It shows that he's not just someone who'll just talk about marriage equality. Like Newsom, Brown can now point to an official act that he's taken to advance the cause of civil rights.

Once more, the question of whether marriage equality should be the law of the land in California was not put to rest by Proposition 8. It is still tied up in the courts. And no matter what the California Supreme Court rules on the validity of Proposition 8, we can assume that its decision will be followed by initiatives either to support or restrict marriage equality. And with Newsom running in the primary, there can be no doubt that the issue of marriage will feature prominently in the political debate.

But Brown's decision isn't just a tactical, short-term move to diminish Newsom's singular status as a lion for LGBT equality. This isn't just a smart move for Brown in the context of the Democratic primary. Brown will soon find himself on the winning side of the marriage issue.

We are trending rapidly into a pro-marriage state. Proposition 8 passed by 52.30%, versus 47.70% who opposed the measure. That's a spread of only 4.6%. Only eight years earlier, Proposition 22, which banned marriage equality in California, passed by a margin of 22.8%. Assuming the historical trend remains constant, a majority of California voters will support marriage equality in two years.

Of course it's possible that the historical trend toward supporting marriage won't progress in a neat linear form. There will probably be some leveling off of support, and the numbers will stabilize. But the fact of the matter is that the bare majority who oppose marriage equality today will be fewer in a general election in 2010, and they may in fact be resigned to a minority. Brown's support for marriage equality today may win him support with the Democratic primary voters, and by 2010, the majority of general election voters may very well support marriage equality.

None of this is to say that Brown is a Machiavelli here. I suspect he really does believe in equality, and that he thinks in his heart of hearts that the initiative process shouldn't be used to strip rights, including marriage rights from minority groups. But he's also a shrewd political operator. And that's a good thing. Whoever wins the Democratic primary for governor of California should be an able and deft politician. They'll need to be fierce competitors against their Republican general election opponent. As someone who supports marriage equality, I want my party's nominees to be willing and eager to do the same.

In fact, I think Brown deserves some accolades for understanding the particular direction of this issue's political winds. He's not just sitting out on the sidelines, letting the cards fall where they may. Instead, he's taking some action to advance the cause of equality. But let's not presume that he's falling on his sword here. The old lion may be in winter, but he knows what he's doing.

Election Reflection Panel Success

Around 70 people filled the Balboa Conference room at the law offices of Coughlin Stoia a couple weeks back. The crowd was eager and excited to talk about this years election. The panel consisted of Scott Peters, Richard Barrera, Leslie Wolf Branscomb and Howard Wayne, along with moderator Len Simon. The panel discussion which lasted for two hours cover topics including: the council president, Prop 8, the city attorney, Obama, city council elections and more.

You can view photos of the evening at Progressive San Diego's Flickr page.

Panelists Announced: Election Reflection

Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Reception at 5:00 p.m. | Program at 6:00 p.m.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 | San Diego, CA 92101

Panelists
Scott Peters
President, San Diego City Council, District 1
Richard Barrera
San Diego School Board-elect, San Diego Regional Organizer for United Healthcare Workers
Howard Wayne
Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, former State Assemblymember
Leslie Wolf Branscomb
former Legal Affairs Editor and County Government Reporter, SD Union Tribune

Moderated by
Len Simon
Of Counsel, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP

Cost: FREE
Parking in the building is available for $5
Street parking and other downtown parking is also available

RSVP: http://www.acslaw.org/chapters/lawyer/sandiego/rsvp

Refreshments will be provided

Topics will include the structure and composition of the City Council, the City Attorney election, the state propositions, and the effects of the presidential election.

_____________
The PSD Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization that works to empower all San Diego residents and communities to work together to create an equitable and sustainable society.
_____________
The ACS for Law and Policy is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is a rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals.

Election Results Show Big Wins for Region’s Working Families

Working families came out ahead in Tuesday’s election as voters chose at least 68 candidates and propositions endorsed by the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council.

Highlighted wins include Marty Block and Manuel Perez for the State Assembly; Sherri Lightner, Todd Gloria and Marti Emerald for San Diego City Council; Steve Castaneda for Chula Vista City Council; and the failure of Proposition B.

The Labor Council is confident Pamela Bensoussan, who is trailing by approximately 100 votes as of Friday, will ultimately win the other Chula Vista City Council seat once all the ballots are counted.

“The real winners of Tuesday’s election are the working families of San Diego County,” Labor Council Secretary-Treasurer Lorena Gonzalez said. “Voters went to the polls not to point fingers or continue the rhetoric of blaming working families for San Diego’s woes, but to find real solutions to the challenges that face our neighborhoods and our economy.”

The wins were cemented with the help of nearly 1,500 individual union members who volunteered for 4,000 shifts during the course of the election season, a total representing 16,000 hours of volunteer time dedicated to informing voters of the candidates’ support for working families.

“I want to thank and recognize every union member who helped our endorsed candidates win,” Gonzalez said. “They are the ones who sacrificed countless weekends, holidays and evenings to make a difference in their communities.”

Trick or Vote San Diego Featured on Travis Smiley | PBS Web Exclusive

Progressive San Diego lead a team of organizations and individuals a week ago today (Halloween) to go door to door in the SDSU area and "trick or vote." The group knocked on doors in a number of precincts and were followed by Video Your Vote, a collaboration between PBS and Youtube. The co-sponsors of the event were: Common Cause, The N3twork, League of Women Voters, the Bus Project and the SDSU Debate Class.

TRAVIS SMILEY | Trick or Vote | PBS

PRESS RELEASE: Progressives Leave Big Mark on Election Day

-- For Immediate Release --

San Diego, CA – On November 4, 2008, voters in the San Diego region made a loud statement to the region’s conservative establishment by electing numerous progressive candidates endorsed by Progressive San Diego. Progressive candidates won expected as well as surprising races on the San Diego City Council, on the San Diego Unified School District, and in the California Legislature.

San Diego City Council

PSD’s endorsed city council candidates Sherri Lightner, Todd Gloria and Marti Emerald all won their respective elections. In District 1, Sherri Lightner put on an impressive performance to beat Phil Thalheimer, who previously ran against Scott Peters. Todd Gloria won in District 3 against another PSD-endorsed progressive, Stephen Whitburn. In District 7, Marti Emerald holds a small advantage over her conservative opponent, April Boling.

San Diego Unified School District

The biggest upset of the night came from another PSD-endorsed candidate, John Lee Evans, in the School Board District A race against incumbent Mitz Lee. Evans won the seat by an impressive nine percentage points. In San Diego no school board member has been unseated in almost 30 years, but Evans broke that record. Additionally, PSD board member Richard Barrera won the School Board District D race without opposition.

California Legislature

Another big win for progressives came in the open seat of the 78th Assembly District, where endorsed candidate Marty Block won by almost ten percentage points. A republican has held that seat for the past six years. In the 76th Assembly District, progressive Lori Saldana was easily re-elected to serve another term. Also, incumbent progressive Christine Kehoe retained her seat on the State Senate.

Progressive San Diego

Formed in 2003, Progressive San Diego is a non-partisan political action committee that works to create a more equitable and sustainable society in the SD region by promoting progressive candidates and policies. Active in the community, PSD has hosted candidate forums and trainings, public speakers and film events. PSD has been vocal on such issues as San Diego City Charter Reform, attacks on livable wages, the big-box ordinance, quality and affordable healthcare and same-sex marriage.

Endorsements

San Diego City Council: Sherri Lightner, Todd Gloria, Stephen Whitburn and Marti Emerald.
San Diego Unified School District: John Lee Evans and Richard Barrera.
San Diego City Attorney: Michael Aguirre.
California State Assembly: Marty Block and Lori Saldana.
California State Senate: Christine Kehoe.

Tommie Watson
Progressive San Diego

ELECTION REFLECTION -- Nov. 11th

Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Reception at 5:00 p.m.
Program at 6:00 p.m.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Cost: FREE
Parking in the building is available for $5
Street parking and other downtown parking is also available

RSVP: progress@progressivesd.org

Refreshments will be provided

Join us as we discuss the rule of law in San Diego post election. Topics will include the structure and composition of the City Council, the City Attorney election, the state propositions, and the effects of the presidential election.

_____________
The PSD Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization that works to empower all San Diego residents and communities to work together to create an equitable and sustainable society.
_____________
The ACS for Law and Policy is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is a rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals.

Statement in Response to Anti-Whitburn Mailer

When Progressive San Diego’s board of directors considers whether to endorse a candidate, the candidate’s ability to wage a clean campaign and spread a positive message while civilly debating his or her opponent is the subject of much discussion. Because PSD believes that candidates must have a positive agenda and be willing to stand up for progressive principles rather than simply opposing an opponent’s nonprogressive positions, we also believe that campaign strategies must focus on spreading that positive message and be limited to responding to attacks on a candidate’s character and integrity. Attack ads, no matter how effective they may be, have absolutely no place–none whatsoever–in a progressive candidate’s campaign. There is nothing progressive about cutting down one candidate so that another will stand out. Progressives have a strong message to spread, but personal attacks and other mud-slinging seriously undermine that message and fuel speculation about the credibility of those who benefit from such tactics.

In the strongest possible terms, Progressive San Diego condemns the recent “hit piece” against City Council District 3 candidate Stephen Whitburn. We do so not because Stephen, along with Todd Gloria, has earned our endorsement. Our condemnation stems from our deep commitment to promoting clean, honest, positive debate among all candidates for public office and keeping gutter politics out of elections. People certainly have the right to express their views about political candidates. But PSD also has the right to call out anyone who tries to stain the respectable campaigns that its endorsees try to run.

This morning PSD spoke to both candidates about the attack on Stephen. Todd unequivocally denied having anything to do with the attack, and PSD takes him at his word. Both candidates rejected attack ads as illegitimate campaign tactics.

What makes the attack especially disturbing is the false light that it casts upon Stephen’s campaign contributors. While PSD is not familiar with every contributor listed in the ad, the overwhelming majority of them are people with impeccable progressive credentials, people who have dedicated themselves to putting public interest over self-interest and are anything but back-room dealers. For the attack’s sponsor to suggest otherwise not only tempts candidates to respond by stepping out onto the slippery slope of gutter politics, but it leaves an unfair and unacceptable trail of collateral damage. It should be obvious to every good progressive candidate that allowing committed members of the progressive community to be sacrificed for political gain is intolerable.

For these reasons, PSD calls on Todd to immediately and publicly denounce the recent attack ad against Stephen and other members of the progressive community; and further calls upon both Stephen and Todd, along with their surrogates and supporters, to refrain from similar attacks. In the final days of this election, each campaign should focus on affirmatively demonstrating that its candidate is the best man to represent the residents of District 3.

Approved by the Board of Directors, October 30, 2008

SIGN UP: Largest GOTV Canvass ... in Costume, Oct. 31st (Halloween)!

Join Progressive San Diego, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, The N3TWORK and others to GOTV around SDSU and enjoy some free food, prizes, goody bags, giveaways, fun and more.

Good money chasing bad?

Rumors about the shift in Republican spending from the 7th to the 1st may be due to the rumor that Mrs. Thalimier isn't too keen on dumping truckloads of her money toward her man this time.

East County Chaldeans going Obama

I was in El Cajon yesterday and heard these hard core Chaldean Bush supporters going for Obama. As expected, it's about the economy and basic governance.

Goldsmith Poll Spread

Latest rumor is that Goldsmith ran a poll earlier this month showing him over Aguirre by 5%. The margin of error: 5%

From the 7th to the 1st

Just heard that the Republicans are shifting resources out of the 7th and into the 1st. No reason given as of yet.

Thoughts?

Setting Sherri Lightner's Record Straight

There has been a lot of mail coming from Sherri Lightner’s opponent lately—firing plenty of attacks, but offering little, if any, substance. It seems that he is more interested in tearing down Lightner’s image than building up his own.

Since he does not seem to want to address any real issues, I thought I might take the time to compare Sherri Lightner with her opponent.

Neighborhoods

Lightner is actively involved with planning and community groups to understand the concerns of residents and stand up for important issues even while running her campaign [more]…
Where is Thalheimer?

Accountability/Openness

Lightner provides detailed answers to questionnaires, shares her political values and positions on major issues on her website, attends many public forums and debates, and has a plan for active public outreach…
Thalheimer ignores or refuses opportunities to answer questions from the public and often replies (when he responds at all) to questionnaires with one-word answers and no explanation.

Outsourcing

Lightner believes in a cautious approach to outsourcing to ensure proper oversight, no loss of service levels, and real savings to taxpayers [more]…
Thalheimer wants to outsource as many services as possible now.

Pension

Lightner realizes that there are no easy answers, that the grim reality may be that the City of San Diego is legally responsible for already-promised benefits, and that much of the funding for these benefits is dangerously invested in the stock market [more]…
Thalheimer thinks that halting the DROP program (which has already been eliminated for new city employees and may not be legally possible to end for older employees) is the silver bullet to solve the problem (GOP mailer, September, 2008).

Budget

Lightner believes that a line-by-line review of the budget will reveal costly and unnecessary expenses and programs that will not impact crucial city and neighborhood services [more]…
Thalheimer prefers to fund things he can “touch” (LJVCA Candidate Caucus, 4/23/08).

Economic Development

Lightner wants to partner with local universities and businesses to bring green industry and green collar jobs to San Diego in order to strengthen our economy by creating good paying jobs and create a new tax base [more]…
Thalheimer has not proposed any ideas.

Overdevelopment

Lightner believes we must ensure that roads, water, open space, parks and available transit be in place before runaway density overtakes us [more]…
Thalheimer says, “We must go up” (La Jolla District 1 Primary debate, 4/22/08).

Paid Parking

Lightner led the effort to prevent paid parking at the beach and on our streets [more]…
Thalheimer was first in favor of paid parking (11/23/07), then against it (4/22/08), and now…?

Regents Road Bridge

Lightner knows that we need results for fire and traffic safety now—many of which can be gained through building a fire station in south University City and improving traffic flow along the Genesee corridor [more]…
Thalheimer was first against it (2004), and then in favor of it (4/22/08), and then against it (La Jolla Village Community Association Forum, 4/23/08), then in favor of it again (5/7/08), and wants to spend millions of dollars and waste several years on designs and planning while ignoring residents’ current needs.

I-5/S-56 Connector

Lightner has signed on to Stop5Noise movement and opposes the removal or destruction of any residential property [more]…
Thalheimer refuses to rule out the destruction of private homes; has not signed onto Stop5Noise.

Code of Fair Campaign Practices

Lightner signed the pledge in March 2008 and has focused her campaign “on issues rather then untruths or distortions," as promised [more]…
Thalheimer signed in March 2008 as well, but has he really kept his word?

It is clear that we have a stark choice in this election. Sherri Lightner is the obvious choice if you would like a say in government, want to know where your councilmember stands (and why), believe that infrastructure should lead development rather than follow it, and is willing to roll up her sleeves and get her hands dirty with the details instead of glossing over big problems.

Come November 4th; let’s make the choice for Sherri Lightner!

Four of five S.D. Congress members vote against bailout

By George E. Condon Jr. and Finlay Lewis
U-T WASHINGTON BUREAU
September 29, 2008


WASHINGTON – Undeterred by heavy lobbying and threats of reprisals, four out of five members of San Diego County's congressional delegation voted against the Wall Street bailout hammered out by the Bush administration and the bipartisan leadership of the Congress.

Only Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, voted for the $700 billion plan. Voting against was Democrat Bob Filner of San Diego and Republicans Duncan Hunter of Alpine, Darrell Issa of Vista and Brian Bilbray of Carlsbad.

For Hunter, who is retiring, the measure presented perhaps the last big vote of his 28 years in Congress. And the administration trained one of its big guns on him to pressure him for his vote.

Vice President Dick Cheney personally appealed for Hunter's support. But Hunter said he told Cheney he could not because the measure amounted to a “massive exposure for the American taxpayer for what's at best a very limited return.”

“He said he appreciated my rationale and that he disagreed with it,” Hunter said. “Over the years we've had a lot of conversations on important issues. A lot of the time we agree; a lot of the time we don't.”

For Issa, the stakes were particularly high, as he angered the Republican leadership and threatened his hopes to become chairman or ranking minority on a key House committee.

Issa was particularly outspoken in denunciation of his own party's leadership at the White House, the Treasury Department and the House. “Our president and our Treasury secretary are wrong on this issue,” he said.

On the other side of the aisle, Filner showed no reluctance to attack his own party leadership. “There was arrogant leadership on both sides,” he said.

“The leaderships want something that the rank and file doesn't. They did it all amongst themselves. The four principals went in a room and then reported back to the caucuses but they didn't take any input from the caucuses. ... This is a push back from the people who want some input.”

Davis couched her support of the bill with an acknowledgment that its provisions represented a wrenching adjustment to the rapidly weakening economy but she argued that the measure's approval was nonetheless a necessary step.

“No bill is a magic bullet but the cost of doing nothing may be far greater than the painful steps we take today,” she said in a statement prior to the roll call.

Bilbray explained his vote in a statement, contending that the measure would not do anything “to address the systemic problems that created the current financial crisis.” Bilbray, who did not return a call for comment, also complained in the statement that the bill offered “nothing but a promise to ensure that this is just a one-time deal.”

“It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to foot a $700 billion bill for the irresponsible actions of Wall Street and borrowers,” Bilbray said.

Bilbray's opponent in the Nov. 4 election, Democrat Nick Leibham, claimed the incumbent's vote helps prolong “the current financial crisis and sent Wall Street into free fall.”

“This man is a disaster. Literally,” Leibham said in a statement. “He has turned his back on the economic well-being of San Diego families and businesses.”

Marty Block Ad

John Burton set to announce candidacy for Democratic Party chairmanship

By Anthony York (published Tuesday, September 23, 2008)


Burton has told those close to him that he is running to succeed outgoing chairman Art Torres, who will leave the post after the party elects a new chairman in April. Burton was not immediately available to comment.

The job of party chairman is particularly important in this era of legislative term limits, and since voters approved Proposition 34, which set campaign contribution limits to candidates, and greatly enhanced the state parties’ rolls as arbiter of millions in political donations during campaign cycles. Burton largely wrote the initiative.

Other candidates in the race include current party vice-chairman Alex Rooker. Los Angeles County Party Chairman Eric Bauman has also been mentioned as a candidate.

Rooker has developed a long endorsement list, which includes incoming Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and a number of legislators and members of Congress. It was unclear how Burton’s entry into the race would effect those endorsements.

Rooker did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment on Burton’s candidacy.

State Democratic Party delegates will vote to replace Torres on April 25, during their spring convention. The new chairman will take office one day after the vote.

For Burton, taking over as party chairman would be coming full circle, in a way. He was the legislative author of Proposition 34 in 2000. That measure was designed to shift political money, and fundraising power, away from individual candidates and increase the stature of political parties.

Under the rules of Proposition 34, parties can receive unlimited donations, but the measure introduced new contribution limits for legislative and statewide candidates.

Since leaving office in 2006, Burton has headed the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes, a non-profit “dedicated to improving the quality of life for California’s homeless children and developing policy solutions to prevent homelessness,” according to the foundation’s Web site.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

The slow death of the San Diego Union-Tribune now has progressed into a collapse. Kind of like Lehman Brothers or AIG as the paper has bought out it's most respected columnists and writers in order to reduce overhead and expenses. It has also closed its D.C. bureau after almost 65 years in operation.

So what's next? If the paper is bought out then what will happen to reporting in San Diego? Love it or hate it (I mostly hated it, I mean the front page was just wire service stories and maybe one good story a month) it was a major news organization and all of the electronic media took its lead from the paper. (Which speaks volumes on the quality of local news in San Diego.)

Should this be seen as a good sign that possibly a balanced media could come to San Diego?

Or just more of the same, only this time with more Fry's ads.

Huh?

Last night at a City Attorney debate, the question of the Chargers staying in San Diego came up. Which prompted a curious response from Jan Goldsmith which Scott Lewis from the Voice of San Diego caught on his blog.

Goldsmith, a Superior Court judge challenging Aguirre in the Nov. 4 election, said he would approach it differently. If the team's pursuit of a stadium in Chula Vista doesn't work, he would seek to form a joint powers authority with all cities in the county, and hold talks with the team.

“They don't want to talk now because maybe they think he'll run out and hold a press conference to attack people, or every time something goes wrong there's a lawsuit,” Goldsmith said of Aguirre. “Sometimes businesses don't react well to that type of approach.”

So as Scott Lewis asks in his commentary. Does this mean that Goldsmith's promise to keep the office of City Attorney apolitical has now been rescinded? Goldsmith says he can't recall he talked about joint powers authority as he stated to Mr. Lewis.

Goldsmith said he doesn't remember what he said at the forum. He said he always says that he would only "seek" the formation of a joint powers authority with other cities if the City Council approved of it.

"I did check with some folks who were taking notes and the notes were unclear about what I said. If I didn't say that last night, I need to clarify it," Goldsmith said.

Huh?

Trying to tackle(pun intended) the Charger issue on your own does seem to be a political ploy to me. Maybe snatch some bolt fan votes by saying I'll make sure this team doesn't leave San Diego County for Stockton or wherever.

What say you, good citizen?

Progressive San Diego: Official Reasons for Dual Endorsement in D3

The post below requires a response from Progressive San Diego. Progressive San Diego aims to put into practice the openness and transparency we advocate. ALL OF OUR REASONS for the dual endorsement were stated in our letter AND there were no other reasons. The blog commentary below is absolutely false speculation. I encourage all readers to take a look at PSD's endorsement letter.

Tommie Watson
operations director, PSD

Uptown Throwdown Continued

So now an update on the D3 race pitting Todd Gloria vs Steve Whitburn race.

On the 28th of last month the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council decided to scrap the triple endorsement since John Hartley came in third and throw their full weight behind Gloria.

Rumors are flying that Steve did very badly during the COPE interview and didn't do so well answering some questions and did not do a great job explaining his answers. His responses softened his support within some of the membership. Unfortunately, I couldn't get clarification from my source what were those questions and how did he answer them. All my source said was that it was wasn't good.

On top of this Progressive San Diego, an organization that has been strong supporters of Donna Frye. Has decided to dual endorse both candidates this past week as opposed to fully Support Donna's protege Steven Whitburn. This is surprising since many members of the board are strong Donna supporters who were very active in her runs for Mayor and the organization strongly supports many of her issues.

Could this be fallout from Donna's new found friendship with Carl DeMaio? If so, Is Steve's close association with Donna becoming a liability? After all it's been said that recent actions by Donna in terms of her support of the Mayor's veto on Big Box and her position against the amicus brief on marriage equality have been causing rifts within groups that you could rely on supporting her. Are these rifts the cause of this seeming shift toward Todd's favor?

What do you think?

The Devil You Know and The Devil You Don't

Here in San Diego we have a choice this November. It's not an easy choice like for President. (I mean c'mon the DNC was awesome and Obama's speech was even better.) It is the choice for San Diego City Attorney. Now, normally this would be a no brainer. However being we've got some what many would see as questionable candidates on both sides would make some see a difficult choice.

On one side we have the incumbent Mike Aguirre. Mike styles himself as a selfless crusader that is willing to expose corruption and hypocrisy regardless of who it is. I think he sees himself as RFK and is bringing back the mandate of a City Attorney that works for all San Diegans.

Yet, he has alienated key members of the traditional Democratic constituencies with his rhetoric on public sector unions, his perceived boorish behavior toward staff and people he believes as his opponents in his quest. Not to mention his questionable statements to the press like suggesting a citywide evacuation during the `07 firestorm. These issues have led some high profile Democrats to support his opponent, Jan Goldsmith.

However Jan Goldsmith isn't a great alternative. A former leader of Assembly Republicans in Sacramento. He has spent his entire political career fighting against progressive causes. I mean other then the bill to legalize ferrets. (I mean of all the issues to champion in this state, you choose ferrets? Really?) What did he do in Sacramento that would be seen as a major accomplishment?

Yet because he promises to return stability and normalcy to the City Attorney's office he has been able to peel off support that would have traditionally gone to Mike.

Now I'm not saying that Mike is down for the count, but you have to wonder what the game plan is to win in November. And ultimately the question for San Diego voters is do we vote for the devil we know or the devil we don't?

Your thoughts?

Update: Here's Aguirre's thoughts on those high profile Dems supporting Jan.

DeMaio Fined by Ethics Commission

The UT has reported that City Councilman-elect Carl DeMaio has been fined $1,500 by the Ethics Commission for deliberately soliciting campaign contributions from city employees.

The fine comes exactly one month after the FPPC declared that DeMaio violated the Political Reform Act in his bid to win the District 5 council seat.

My favorite part of the story comes when DeMaio tries to blame his violation on the Ethics Commission, the same defense he used with the FPPC violation. While he says that the commission provided him with a letter supporting his decision to intentionally add city employees to his e-mail solicitation lists, Stacey Fulhorst, the commission's executive director, disagrees (emphasis added):

'Our investigation showed that Mr. DeMaio knew some city employees would be among those invited to the fundraiser at his home,' Fulhorst said. 'If you as a candidate put city employees on a solicitation list, you are considered targeting them.'

She said the letter covers candidates who send out mass solicitations as long as city employees are not specifically targeted. She added that DeMaio did not know about the advice letter until after the investigation was under way.

I'm sure DeMaio will try and brush this off as not being a big deal. Some may think it was just an e-mail list, and deserves little attention. I disagree.

Even if this were nothing more than an e-mail list containing 90 people who shouldn't be on the list, it underscores a major flaw in the right-wing's "Superman."

At worst, DeMaio seems to feel he can bend rules to conform to his benefit and lie and deflect his way out of responsibility. At best, he has twice been extremely sloppy in following basic campaign rules.

Either way, these two violations highlight the reason so many distrust his motives. It also showcases himself as being exactly what he claims to be fighting against.

How can you be a "reformer" when you behave the same as those you claim to be acting against?

District 7 Grantville

From today’s Voice of San Diego:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/08/13/survival/485distseven081208.txt


Marti Emerald said she supports the Grantville Action Group, the group of some of Grantville's business and property owners who oppose the designation of the community as a redevelopment area. She said she sides with the small business owners there who fear being pushed out in favor of the new vision for the community under redevelopment.


A legitimate position especially in a City of Villages.


April Boling said she believes Grantville will redevelop whether it's a redevelopment project area --"Redevelopment, capital R," she calls it -- or not. She supports the creation of a master plan for Grantville and the creation of the redevelopment area. Her chief reason: reinvesting the tax increment generated there to take care of the big infrastructure needs in Grantville, like aligning Mission Gorge Road with Interstate 8.


The problem with redevelopment zones is that they encourage the creation of development corporations (CCDC, SEDC) that run over established businesses and create the Mission Valleys that April wants to avoid.

Redevelopment zones were created in he early 1970’s to help the most blighted areas get on their feet. What has happened is that local governments have used them, especially in California since Prop 13, to recapture taxes lost from property by creating a larger sales tax base in areas that questionably qualify as a redevelopment zones.

There is a Grantville Action Group that wants to have a say in their future. Let them. Small businesses are the backbone of a thriving society and they know their customer base best. Grantville isn’t where it could be but it’s not on life support. Making the area a redevelopment zone would deny the locals a fair say in their future and strip them of the responsibility of maintaining their own back yard.