Some hi-lites from the last week…

Trading Traffic for Carpetbagging (or trafficking in carpetbags)… The first question out of several political watchers’ mouths in response to State Assemblywoman Lori Saldana’s intent to run against County Supervisor Ron Roberts next year was, "But, she doesn’t live in the district."  

Problem solved.  Last week, Saldana moved from Supe Pam Slater-Price’s district three to the fourth district, citing "traffic" concerns, and thus setting up a challenge to Roberts.  The Union-Trib pol blog notes that Saldana herself has been critical in the past of such "moves" on the part of others.  It’s worth the read.

But. let’s face it.  When one is limited to six years in the assembly and — if a seat is available — eight in the senate, no amount of traffic or carpetbagging should reasonably stand in the way of a county supervisorial seat, where history shows incumbents enjoy office for sometimes 20 years, without having to enjoy the thrills of Sacramento.

Whether the voters opt to impose the thrills of someone with Sacramento experience on themselves at the local level … well, that may be another story.

Sheriff Candidate David Bejarano Swimming in Cash (like $100K)… This was a breaking news exclusive on the FlashReport yesterday.  I’m awaiting the other contenders’ campaign reports hitting the registrar’s office … If any candidates are so inclined, they may also send them to me.

Read the original post here.

The NCTimes had it next.

Joel Anderson Seat — If Open — Gets it’s First Official Contender… Christine Rubin’s announcement appeared on FR as well…

Here is the link.

Rider’s Cause over State Constitional Convention Distresses Common Cause… Long and worth it, by Libertarian conscience Richard Rider, on his attendance at an event to push for the big state wing-ding…

Today (1 August) I went to the public Common Cause "panel discussion" where they pushed their California Constitutional Convention.  All things considered, my confrontational approach went rather well.  VERY well, in fact.

I brought three flyers to pass out (one is copied below).  Jesse Thomas did the dirty work passing out these pieces — against the wishes of the meeting honchos.  As if we cared about their wishes!  We also put the flyers on the literature table, and many picked up copies.
 
After the rambling statements of the panelists, people in the audience were given ONE MINUTE to make a statement.  That I did.  And that’s not much time.
 
I introduced myself and pointed out that I was a Commissioner on the 1997 California Constitution Revision Commission.  I congratulated the panel for its diversity — diversity in all but one area — diversity of OPINION.
 
Then I asked the panel three quick "raise your hand" questions:
 
1.  "How many of you would oppose the lowering of the 2/3 majority threshold to pass the state budget?"
 
2.  "How many of you would oppose lowering the 2/3 threshold for raising taxes?"
 
3.  "How many of you oppose the establishment of a state Constitutional Convention?"
 
Of course, not a hand went up.  
 
I then pointed out that I contacted Common Cause (in plenty of time) to be added to the panel — or to have someone like me added to the panel.  I was airily dismissed.
 
One unnerving aspect is that these folks have a plan to first pick convention delegates at random, and then wean out those who are unsatisfactory (a jury selection process), with the "good government" folks making the selections, and removal of the "crazies." 
 
I pointed out the danger of this approach — pointing out that I’d probably be one of the "crazies" eliminated.
 
I concluded that this was less a panel discussion than a propaganda seminar, and that was flat out wrong.  The 90% liberal audience (made up of Common Cause and League of Women Voters members) didn’t much like it, but my point was driven home.
 
The moderator tried to brush away my objection by saying that I was invited by the Common Cause response to ATTEND the meeting — which I quickly responded "and limited to a one minute statement."
 
I was quite firm but not openly hostile.  My point was made.
 
Here’s the most inflammatory flyer, and probably the one that did the most good in putting Common Cause on the spot.
 
SHAME ON COMMON CAUSE!!

This panel assembled here in San Diego consists of speakers eminently qualified to discuss the merits of convening a California Constitution Convention.  The panel, selected by Common Cause, offers diversity in several respects.

Except one.

Where’s the diversity of OPINION??  Where’s the opposition viewpoint to this convention – and to the repeal of taxpayer protections?

Every person on this panel along with the moderator supports a Constitutional Convention.  Every participant wants Prop 13 modified or repealed.  Every participant wants the 2/3 vote requirement for passing the state budget and raising taxes to be abolished or reduced.

This meeting is not so much a “panel discussion” as a propaganda seminar PRETENDING to be a panel discussion.  On the core issues, no significant dissenting opinion is tolerated on the panel.

I know.  I asked Common Cause for an opponent to be added to the panel (me, or someone else of similar thinking).  I was brushed off.

Three of the five panel participants are career government employees with HUGE conflicts of interest when it comes to taxes.  Several have a history of paid activism within the Democrat Party and/or its candidates.

Again, let me emphasize that there is nothing wrong with the folks selected for the panel.  Their collective viewpoint certainly should be presented.  The problem is who was NOT selected – anyone who would dare question and oppose this proposed Constitutional Convention.

The only good news is that perhaps Common Cause has overplayed its hand.  If the convention is indeed held, Common Cause will try to be the “educational” source for the randomly selected delegates.  As we can now see, Common Cause is incapable of being evenhanded in this matter.

Authored by Richard Rider, a Commissioner on the 1997 California Constitution Revision Commission

–30–

As the meeting progressed, things got better for me.  I was referred to several times by the panelists and moderator as someone whose views would be included in future gatherings.  After it was over, I spoke briefly and shook hands with the moderator, who promised to have me included in future panels.
 
One fun part was that a question was asked about the 1990’s California Constitution Revision Commission procedures.  The panelists and moderator (two were university political science professors) were stumped.  They asked me to comment.  I spent two minutes explaining how the commission was constituted and how our minority group was able to block passage of the recommendations (we filed a minority report that impressed sufficient state legislators that the whole package was killed off).  Naturally this exchange only further established that I had much to contribute to this discussion, and should have been included. 
 
After it was over, a few people (mostly allies) came over and offered encouraging words.  Even a handful of liberals thanked me for my  participation.
 
Bottom line:  I got what I wanted.  I’ll be included in future discussions, and the proponents got a black eye.
 
The bad news?  ALMOST no press attended.  But as a result, I’ll have an article I wrote (my "Breaking Bad" flyer) published in the East County Magazine, an online publication.

###
 
Have a great week!!

###

All of Barry’s posts.

Twitter Feed.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.