by Thomas Gangale
California Notes
21 November 2007
During the past week, a wave of outrage has swept through the California Democratic Party in response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's vote to confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as the new United States Attorney General, a guy who, if interviewed as a candidate to become the next Olympics Committee chair, might offer the same equivocating testimony on the prospect of waterboarding as a new competition for the Summer Games. (Certainly the USA could field the Dream Team for this event.) A resolution censuring Senator Feinstein, which has been adopted by numerous local Democratic clubs, county central committees, and even several caucuses of the CDP, alludes to other "instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has worked to oppose the policies and principles of our party."
In one of my areas of expertise--electoral reform--I can testify to a couple of instances of Senator Feinstein's inadequate performance. The issues I address in this article and the following one add to the troubling picture of a Senator who is out of touch with the opinions and interests of the people of California.
One electoral reform issue is the Electoral College. Most Californian's don't like it, and with good reason. Electoral votes for president of the United States are allocated to the states on the basis of their representation in Congress, and of course, while the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives is on the basis of population, the allocation of two senators to each state, regardless of population, violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Thus, California's 33.9 million people (as of the 2000 US Census) were allocated 55 electors (53 House seats plus two Senate seats). That's 616,000 Californians per elector. Wyoming--the least populous state--has 494,000 people and three electors (one House seat plus two Senate seats). That's only 165,000 Wyomingites per elector. In other words, one voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the political power of one Californian.
So, in March 2005, Senator Feinstein introduced a measure to abolish the Electoral College and elect the president by direct popular vote. What's wrong with that idea? Theoretically, nothing; practically, everything.
FULL STORY
26 November 2007
25 November 2007
The Fear of Losing Control in the California Democratic Party
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
24 November 2007
I have spent several days turning over in my mind the events at the California Democratic Party's recent Executive Board meeting in Anaheim. Having taken that time to reflect, I flatter myself that this article is not a knee-jerk reaction to campaign strategist Bob Mulholland's characterization of supporters of the Feinstein censure resolution as "armchair activists," "fringe," "pre-nursing home," and "worse than Bush," Resolutions Committee co-chair John Hanna's pushing Eden James and grabbing his sign, and Art Torres' exhortations before the Resolutions Committee and the General Session.
I have had several encounters with Bob Mulholland, none of them overly pleasant, and this Executive Board meeting was no exception. While the Resolutions Committee was taking a ten-minute break on Saturday night, Bob approached me and demanded, "How many resolutions did you submit?"
I gathered from his demeanor that he felt that the Sonoma County Democratic Party had an excessive number of resolutions before the committee. What Bob didn't know was that half of them were submitted in time for earlier meetings, but somehow they were misplaced by the CDP, and therefore delayed, so the backlog of old resolutions and the new resolutions happened to be stacked up on the committee's current consent calendar.
I shrugged as I craned my neck to reply to this voice from ten inches above. "I don't know exactly."
Immediately he went on the attack. "What that tells me is that they aren't very important. A lot of people are saying that you're sending too many resolutions, but they won't say it to your face."
"Let them say it to my face. I don't care. Anyway, how much money do you have in your wallet? You probably don't know exactly. If that means it's not important, why don't you give me all of your money."
Bob's response was barely audible and not at all intelligible. Next time I see him, I'll ask him, "What's in your wallet?"
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
24 November 2007
I have spent several days turning over in my mind the events at the California Democratic Party's recent Executive Board meeting in Anaheim. Having taken that time to reflect, I flatter myself that this article is not a knee-jerk reaction to campaign strategist Bob Mulholland's characterization of supporters of the Feinstein censure resolution as "armchair activists," "fringe," "pre-nursing home," and "worse than Bush," Resolutions Committee co-chair John Hanna's pushing Eden James and grabbing his sign, and Art Torres' exhortations before the Resolutions Committee and the General Session.
I have had several encounters with Bob Mulholland, none of them overly pleasant, and this Executive Board meeting was no exception. While the Resolutions Committee was taking a ten-minute break on Saturday night, Bob approached me and demanded, "How many resolutions did you submit?"
I gathered from his demeanor that he felt that the Sonoma County Democratic Party had an excessive number of resolutions before the committee. What Bob didn't know was that half of them were submitted in time for earlier meetings, but somehow they were misplaced by the CDP, and therefore delayed, so the backlog of old resolutions and the new resolutions happened to be stacked up on the committee's current consent calendar.
I shrugged as I craned my neck to reply to this voice from ten inches above. "I don't know exactly."
Immediately he went on the attack. "What that tells me is that they aren't very important. A lot of people are saying that you're sending too many resolutions, but they won't say it to your face."
"Let them say it to my face. I don't care. Anyway, how much money do you have in your wallet? You probably don't know exactly. If that means it's not important, why don't you give me all of your money."
Bob's response was barely audible and not at all intelligible. Next time I see him, I'll ask him, "What's in your wallet?"
FULL STORY
21 November 2007
Sonoma County Democratic Party Poopers
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
21 November 2007
If party organizations are "increasingly irrelevant," as the Santa Rosa Press Democrat claimed in its November 19th editorial, "Party Favors," traditional print publications such as the PD are becoming irrelevant even faster. They are a dying breed, and the Press Democrat's lashing out at the Sonoma County Democratic Party is symptomatic of the death throes.
There are a lot of things that are flat out wrong about the PD's editorial, which is unsurprising, since I have never seen a member of their editorial staff at a single meeting of the Central Committee or any of its standing committees. My committee, for instance, hosted a public forum on local water issues a few months ago. Was the PD there? Does the PD care?
Anyone can have an opinion, but the public has a right to expect from the press or anyone else who claims the mantle of opinion leader that the opinion expressed is an informed one. Sadly, the PD's November 19th editorial was an exposition of opinionated ignorance.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
21 November 2007
If party organizations are "increasingly irrelevant," as the Santa Rosa Press Democrat claimed in its November 19th editorial, "Party Favors," traditional print publications such as the PD are becoming irrelevant even faster. They are a dying breed, and the Press Democrat's lashing out at the Sonoma County Democratic Party is symptomatic of the death throes.
There are a lot of things that are flat out wrong about the PD's editorial, which is unsurprising, since I have never seen a member of their editorial staff at a single meeting of the Central Committee or any of its standing committees. My committee, for instance, hosted a public forum on local water issues a few months ago. Was the PD there? Does the PD care?
Anyone can have an opinion, but the public has a right to expect from the press or anyone else who claims the mantle of opinion leader that the opinion expressed is an informed one. Sadly, the PD's November 19th editorial was an exposition of opinionated ignorance.
FULL STORY
14 November 2007
A Modest Proposal to Balance California's Budget
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
14 November 2007
California's latest budget crisis is solved!
Years ago, I hated it when Candlestick Park was renamed 3Com Park. Now it's Monster Park. Sure, that makes more sense; you have to be some kind of a monster to survive the weather in the damned place. Anyway, city governments have been cutting such deals with corporations for years in order to ease their financial woes, so why couldn't the state government do the same thing by leasing the naming rights to the state's geography?
However, I wouldn't want our state to entirely prostitute its geographic identity to corporate advertising; rather, I would insist that some vestige of the original name survive from one corporate sellout to the next. If British Petroleum leased the naming rights to the Santa Barbara Channel, for instance, I wouldn't stand for them renaming it the English Channel. Bugger that! And none of this tedious 3Com Park at Candlestick Point dodge either; you Madison Avenue guys are more clever than that, and if your client's corporate name is tough to fit into this geographic scheme, well that's why you get paid the big bucks.
So, what could we do here in California? Georgia Pacific could add its name to a national forest of its choice, and that might incentivize the company to conserve the forest rather that log it, although it would be kind of weird having the name Georgia on a forest in California. The Morton Salton Sea is a no-brainer. We could have Sequoia Voting Systems National Park, unless Secretary of State Debra Bowen vigorously objects. Nestle and Hershey could compete for the Chocolate Mountains contract, but being a San Franciscan of Italian descent, I'd root for Ghirardelli.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
14 November 2007
California's latest budget crisis is solved!
Years ago, I hated it when Candlestick Park was renamed 3Com Park. Now it's Monster Park. Sure, that makes more sense; you have to be some kind of a monster to survive the weather in the damned place. Anyway, city governments have been cutting such deals with corporations for years in order to ease their financial woes, so why couldn't the state government do the same thing by leasing the naming rights to the state's geography?
However, I wouldn't want our state to entirely prostitute its geographic identity to corporate advertising; rather, I would insist that some vestige of the original name survive from one corporate sellout to the next. If British Petroleum leased the naming rights to the Santa Barbara Channel, for instance, I wouldn't stand for them renaming it the English Channel. Bugger that! And none of this tedious 3Com Park at Candlestick Point dodge either; you Madison Avenue guys are more clever than that, and if your client's corporate name is tough to fit into this geographic scheme, well that's why you get paid the big bucks.
So, what could we do here in California? Georgia Pacific could add its name to a national forest of its choice, and that might incentivize the company to conserve the forest rather that log it, although it would be kind of weird having the name Georgia on a forest in California. The Morton Salton Sea is a no-brainer. We could have Sequoia Voting Systems National Park, unless Secretary of State Debra Bowen vigorously objects. Nestle and Hershey could compete for the Chocolate Mountains contract, but being a San Franciscan of Italian descent, I'd root for Ghirardelli.
FULL STORY
13 November 2007
Feinstein Frees Fresno from Toyota Torture
by Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
13 November 2007
I have come to love Fresno. Some of my best friends are in Fresno, and they have shown me unbounded hospitality and generosity. But, I have to say, in whining about a recent Toyota Prius advertisement on TV, Fresno and Senator Dianne Feinstein have only succeeded in making themselves more ridiculous. A lot of people, including myself, wouldn't have even known about the ad had Fresno stoically accepted it as a rite of passage.
Way to go, Fresno. After all these years, some finally made a joke about you to the rest of the nation. You finally caught up with Lodi. But, I don't recall that back in 1969, when John Fogerty wrote and recorded his lament over being stuck in Lodi, the city's residents rioted in front of Fantasy Records and burned Creedence Clearwater Revival albums.
One cannot choose but wonder that Toyota's little dig at Fresno rose straight to the top of Senator Feinstein's priorities, even though there's a war on, it's not going particularly well, et cetera. Funny thing, when I spoke about pandering politicians during a panel discussion in Fresno just as this story was breaking, I had Senator Feinstein very much in mind. I was speaking on another issue, and I hadn't heard yet that she had weighed in on the Prius controversy and had sent Toyota a nastygram. In so doing, she has given this already ridiculous flap an extended life. One day she votes to confirm a US attorney general who isn't clear on whether waterboarding is torture, and the next day the Senator is very clear on the question of Toyota torturing Fresno. How sensitive of her. Of course, like me, she's one of those touchy-feely San Franciscans, and that's lucky for me, otherwise she might have her new attorney general waterboard me for the things I write about her.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
13 November 2007
I have come to love Fresno. Some of my best friends are in Fresno, and they have shown me unbounded hospitality and generosity. But, I have to say, in whining about a recent Toyota Prius advertisement on TV, Fresno and Senator Dianne Feinstein have only succeeded in making themselves more ridiculous. A lot of people, including myself, wouldn't have even known about the ad had Fresno stoically accepted it as a rite of passage.
Way to go, Fresno. After all these years, some finally made a joke about you to the rest of the nation. You finally caught up with Lodi. But, I don't recall that back in 1969, when John Fogerty wrote and recorded his lament over being stuck in Lodi, the city's residents rioted in front of Fantasy Records and burned Creedence Clearwater Revival albums.
One cannot choose but wonder that Toyota's little dig at Fresno rose straight to the top of Senator Feinstein's priorities, even though there's a war on, it's not going particularly well, et cetera. Funny thing, when I spoke about pandering politicians during a panel discussion in Fresno just as this story was breaking, I had Senator Feinstein very much in mind. I was speaking on another issue, and I hadn't heard yet that she had weighed in on the Prius controversy and had sent Toyota a nastygram. In so doing, she has given this already ridiculous flap an extended life. One day she votes to confirm a US attorney general who isn't clear on whether waterboarding is torture, and the next day the Senator is very clear on the question of Toyota torturing Fresno. How sensitive of her. Of course, like me, she's one of those touchy-feely San Franciscans, and that's lucky for me, otherwise she might have her new attorney general waterboard me for the things I write about her.
FULL STORY
01 November 2007
N.H., Iowa Keep the Candidates' Attention
Wallets Open Wide Despite Changes in Primary Calendar
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post
31 October 2007
PLYMOUTH, N.H. -- Just down the block from Anderson's Bakery and across from the local movie house with a flickering neon sign, a group of young men with laptops moved into a tan Cape Cod and announced their presence with a billboard out front: "Hillary."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's storefront office in this New England hamlet (population 5,892) is one of 16 the New York Democrat has set up with paid staff around the state that is expected to hold the nation's first presidential primary. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), perhaps her strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, has plans to open his own office in Plymouth, which will give him a base of operations in 15 locations. Between them, the two campaigns have more than 140 paid field staffers across the state.
The extensive spending here, as described by local officials and laid out in campaign finance reports, provides a look at how money is changing the way presidential hopefuls are approaching the pivotal early contests.
The decision by most of the leading presidential candidates to opt out of the public financing system that would have restricted their primary spending in New Hampshire to less than $800,000 has resulted in armies of paid workers trying to squeeze votes out of every corner of the state.
"The amount of money being spent in the early states are of an order of magnitude that we've never seen before," said Alan Solomont, who oversees northeastern fundraising for the Obama campaign.
The huge spending here has helped debunk the notion that an increasingly front-loaded primary calendar would diminish the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa. Democratic candidates have spent $2.4 million in New Hampshire so far this year on rent and staff alone. That is more than double the $1.1 million they had spent in the state at this point in 2003. The numbers are even more pronounced in Iowa, where Democrats have spent $4.6 million so far this year -- almost four times the $1.2 million they expended four years ago. Republicans have spent more than $4 million on rent and staff in New Hampshire and Iowa so far this year.
The glut in spending has come before most of the candidates have started to invest substantial amounts in the most costly aspect of a campaign -- television advertising.
FULL STORY
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post
31 October 2007
PLYMOUTH, N.H. -- Just down the block from Anderson's Bakery and across from the local movie house with a flickering neon sign, a group of young men with laptops moved into a tan Cape Cod and announced their presence with a billboard out front: "Hillary."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's storefront office in this New England hamlet (population 5,892) is one of 16 the New York Democrat has set up with paid staff around the state that is expected to hold the nation's first presidential primary. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), perhaps her strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, has plans to open his own office in Plymouth, which will give him a base of operations in 15 locations. Between them, the two campaigns have more than 140 paid field staffers across the state.
The extensive spending here, as described by local officials and laid out in campaign finance reports, provides a look at how money is changing the way presidential hopefuls are approaching the pivotal early contests.
The decision by most of the leading presidential candidates to opt out of the public financing system that would have restricted their primary spending in New Hampshire to less than $800,000 has resulted in armies of paid workers trying to squeeze votes out of every corner of the state.
"The amount of money being spent in the early states are of an order of magnitude that we've never seen before," said Alan Solomont, who oversees northeastern fundraising for the Obama campaign.
The huge spending here has helped debunk the notion that an increasingly front-loaded primary calendar would diminish the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa. Democratic candidates have spent $2.4 million in New Hampshire so far this year on rent and staff alone. That is more than double the $1.1 million they had spent in the state at this point in 2003. The numbers are even more pronounced in Iowa, where Democrats have spent $4.6 million so far this year -- almost four times the $1.2 million they expended four years ago. Republicans have spent more than $4 million on rent and staff in New Hampshire and Iowa so far this year.
The glut in spending has come before most of the candidates have started to invest substantial amounts in the most costly aspect of a campaign -- television advertising.
FULL STORY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
