In Response to the Calitics Endorsement in AD-40

Thanks for putting this out. (0.00 / 0)

   I think Damian Carroll stated it well. All of the four main candidates have their merits. I think that Laurette would be OK but is the one closest to being someone who would be in the "business Democrats" caucus. She is a good person, friendly and listens to others, but is nowhere near the most strongly progressive candidate on most issues. (She is strong on LGBT issues, though).
   If I were voting in the 40th I would vote for Dan McCrory if I wanted to support my favorite, and Stuart if I wanted to go with the one with the most relevant experience and local involvement (and chance of winning). They are all pretty good and we aren't going too far wrong with any of them as Assemblymember.

  On a different race (where I used to live): Why Emily Reilly over Bill Monning in AD-27? He has more of the progressive and labor endorsements and has run before (against  McPherson back in the '90s)

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 16:36:11 PM CDT

AD-27 (0.00 / 0)

Speaking for myself here, not on behalf of the whole board

Bill Monning is a great guy, a good progressive, and if he wins he'd make a great assemblymember from my district. So would Barbara Sprenger. But Emily Reilly combines the progressive cred that both Monning and Sprenger have with recent government experience, especially with balancing budgets and seeking new revenues. As she explained in her own Calitics post earlier this year:

Our structural budget deficit is the single largest problem facing the state, because it affects every goal we are trying to accomplish.  

As a state, we cannot continue to embrace the Governor's policy of slashing the budget year after year without any attempt to enhance revenues.  It is irresponsible to jeopardize the future of Californians by eating away at our infrastructure and essential programs.  How we invest our money is a reflection of the things we value and our budget is the statement of these values.

During my first few years on the Santa Cruz city council we had some difficult financial challenges. I supported and advocated for tactics that, although sometimes reducing services, did not eliminate any. And because, unlike the state, we had to balance the budget, and because we had a city council that agreed to put differences aside and work together, we were able to cut 7 million dollars from a 42 million dollar general fund, keep people employed and provide essential city services.

It was very difficult, and I believe our willingness to make those hard decisions was why our city residents passed a permanent sales tax increase to augment our general fund a few years later. We used that money, as we had promised, to increase services and to repair our infrastructure. That sales tax was critical to addressing our budget needs in Santa Cruz.

Neither Monning nor Sprenger have that kind of experience (Sprenger served on the SLV school board, but that isn't the same as Reilly's experience with city budgeting, which is much closer to state budgeting). And since that's the #1 issue that anyone we send to the Assembly is going to have to tackle, I find Emily Reilly's qualifications to be the most compelling of the candidates.

No matter who wins we're going to send a true progressive to Sacramento. It's a wonderful position to be in - AD-27 is a fantastic district and no matter who wins, I hope the other two candidates find another place in government, because we can really use what they have to offer.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 17:22:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley ISN'T, IT'S A PAC (0.00 / 0)

DPSFV, known as dip-siv for all but a few weeks before each election, is NOT by any STRETCH of the imagination THE actual Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, although all the mailers as well as Damian's e-mail will now present it as such. It is a PAC. That's POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.

Yet each political season, it trots out the full wording so that the voters in the district may, once again, be fooled into thinking that it's really from the Democratic Party. It ISN'T!!! It's only a NAME.

Recently, this PAC has had its own little revolt as a result of its dictatorial endorsement committee and the lack of inclusiveness of the 27 clubs listed-as-members.

Valley Democrats United had threatened to withdraw from what is called an "umbrella organization" as a result of disagreements with how the DPSFV endorsement committee selected candidates and who was selected.  

Having just come from the Valley Democrats United club meeting where DPSFV officers, including Damian, met with the leadership there and promised greater openness, this blog by him is a stark reminder of the opposite. VDU tonight voted to stay "in" for now.

And, I am really offended by Damian's characterization of your endorsement. Obviously, he is not privy to the recent shouting match between Bob and Stuart that happened IN FRONT OF the editorial board at the Daily News. He seems oblivious to the highly unethical behavior at the Stonewall endorsement meeting. There is no mention of the flailing mud-slinging now battering the mailboxes in the district from his favored candidates. And regular readers of Calitics will find an extensive article I published last Friday on the "Independent Expenditures" issue for both of these candidates. The very idea that Blumenfield would EVER be considered a progressive is a real joke considering his work justifying the war votes of the "Joe Lieberman-of-the-West." (Berman again joined with the Republicans to vote for Iraq war funding)

Laurette's campaign has offered voters a clear choice compared to the politics-as-usual "brawling boys." Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, of which I am a part, ENDORSED HEALEY after the two candidate forums that I produced in February and March. She was clearly the best progressive candidate. Trying to tar her with having been a Republican early in her life just doesn't cut it.  

So, when we talk about DPSFV, let's all remember from now on that it's NOT the "Democratic Party," and in fact, it isn't really "democratic" either at this point. VDU will be watching to find out if the closely held clique of top-down people from the Young Democrats and Valley Grassroots for Democracy actually DO start to open up the process and let the sun shine in. There's been precious little of it during the last few years.###

---

by: lindasutton @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:13:17 AM CDT

Wrong again, Linda (0.00 / 0)

DPSFV, known as dip-siv for all but a few weeks before each election

Actually, it's always pronounced "dip-siv."  I wasn't aware there was a different pronunciation at different times of the year.

Recently, this PAC has had its own little revolt as a result of its dictatorial endorsement committee and the lack of inclusiveness of the 27 clubs listed-as-members.

Valley Democrats United had threatened to withdraw from what is called an "umbrella organization" as a result of disagreements with how the DPSFV endorsement committee selected candidates and who was selected.

As you full well know, Linda, the DPSFV endorsements for CD24 and County Committee were voted upon at the April meeting.  VDU did not have a club rep in attendance to vote for or against the endorsements.  VDU did not have its voice heard because no one from VDU was there to speak up so any lack of inclusiveness is VDU's own fault.  It was disingenuous for VDU to then have their "storm the Bastille" moment at the May meeting to object to the endorsements, something that I spoke to at the May meeting.

I should point out that VDU's objection is that its former president wasn't endorsed for CD24 and its current president wasn't endorsed for County Committee even though VDU doesn't think DPSFV should endorse.  I wonder if there had been such a kerfuffle over endorsements if the VDU candidates had been endorsed.  Or would Linda have come to the May meeting to object anyway, because we've been told that the issue is the principle of endorsements?  But we'll never know because the VDU club rep wasn't there in April to represent VDU's interests.

So, when we talk about DPSFV, let's all remember from now on that it's NOT the "Democratic Party," and in fact, it isn't really "democratic" either at this point. VDU will be watching to find out if the closely held clique of top-down people from the Young Democrats and Valley Grassroots for Democracy actually DO start to open up the process and let the sun shine in. There's been precious little of it during the last few years.

The officers and board members are elected by Valley Dem Club members at a General Assembly every other February.  It's hardly undemocratic.  The reason there are many members of VGFD and SFVYD on the Eboard is that we are the people who work the campaign HQ, we are the people who are known, and the members of our clubs come out and vote at the General Assembly.  It's as simple as that.  Linda, if you were more involved in a constructive manner at one of our meetings, if you were volunteering at events, if you were making calls or knocking on doors at the HQ, you would see that DPSFV is more than endorsements.  Instead you sit at the meeting muttering under your breath, insulting the chair (I was sitting right next to you), and showing disrespect for the rest of us who work our butts of to get Democrats elected.

---

by: runchadrun @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:04:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Endorsements are difficult.... (0.00 / 0)

Endorsements are a difficult process and by their very nature not everyone will be pleased with the outcome. OK, so that is reality.

I am curious, why would Linda Sutton, who is singularly uninformed about the DPSFV endorsement process feel entitled to misrepresent it.

Our endorsement committee requires all candidates to complete a thorough questionnaire, interviews them and then after vigorous debate makes a recommendation for endorsement to the entire group.

The meeting is noticed and everyone is welcome. At the meeting a consent calendar is presented and recommendations can be pulled, debated and voted on. Endorsements require *60% to pass. Not exactly secretive, furtive or un-Democratic.

It should be noted that the Valley Dems United's club rep, a voting member of DPSFV was not even at the meeting in question. It should also be noted that during this endorsement season several recommendations were pulled and some were overturned, some were upheld. That is Democratic.

As to her mis-representations about what and when DPSFV does....don't even know where to begin. It is simply an insult to a 30 year old organization who in the 2006 general election :
*made 116,000 local phone calls
*made 25,000 red-to blue calls for folks like Jerry McNerney
*hung 14,000 door-hangers
*walked 186 precincts
*monitored 136 polling locations on election day
*designed and manufactured the yard signs use throughout CA

Additionally, there are forums, packages for our troops, voter registration drives and much more.

And, DPSFV will continue to work and invites all Democrats to join us!

Agi Kessler
Chair, DPSFV

---

by: agikessler @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:13:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh! (0.00 / 0)

Blumenfield got his start as a staffer to Senator Bill Bradley and has a pretty long record as a liberal activist going back to college.  I notice that you skip Dan McCrory and maybe you would like to share Laurette's advantages over him.  But most of all, trying to pass of her being a Republican "early in life" is silly when she has consistently described herself as a moderate and has on more than one occasion claimed that she would have the best ability to work with people from the other party.  

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:06 AM CDT

DP/SFV (0.00 / 0)

DP/SFV's "democratic" endorsement process involves an endorsement committee hand picked by the chair, Agi Kessler. Notwithstanding the questionnaires, not "presenting well" is given as an reason for withholding an endorsment.  Don't catch a cold before your interview!  

When Jean Goodman, president of the Malibu Democratic Club, stood up to speak against the endorsement of Lloyd Levine over Fran Pavley at the endorsement meeting she was shouted at, insulted and called out of order. So much for democracy.

When I went to the "General Assembly" last year I saw that many of those running for executive board were employees of incumbents.  That was shocking to me, novice that I was. It is also not surprising that many clubs do not send representatives to the meetings since clubs are included from as far away as the Antelope Valley and Newhall.

If DP/SFV is a PAC they should bill themselves as such and change their name so that recipients of their slate mailer (paid for by their endorsed candidates) will know that they do not represent the Democratic Party whose Central Committee members,elected by ALL Democrats in the County in the general election (you can vote for County Committee June 3rd - check your ballot - Agi and I are both running in the 41st AD) issue the official endorsements which can be found on the LA County Democratic Party website.

---

by: Dorothy Reik @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 18:25:33 PM CDT

FOR THE RECORD...ON Laurette Healey (0.00 / 0)

So that Damian, as a Young Democrat and DPSFV member, can be better informed when he blogs here:

Laurette Healey registered as a Democrat is 1992, hardly what could be termed "recent." She was raised in a Republican household, as were MANY of the present-day Democrats. Her dad, now deceased, served in the New York State Legislature for over 25 years.

One of the first times I spoke with Laurette at the Valley Democrats United meeting, she recounted how her dad had taken her with him to the state legislature when she was a little girl. While he argued FOR Roe vs. Wade, he pointed to her and said he was doing this to ensure that his daughter would have the rights she deserved. So, while raised by a Republican, this was a different world back then and one that the youngest Democrats today cannot imagine.

Furthermore, Healey has consistently backed Democratic issues while being fiscally responsible. This comes from her time building a business and actually being responsible for the payroll. In her position as Deputy State Controller, she was able to see how much our state is in NEED of legislators who actually understand how to balance a budget. Obviously, the rest of the state knows that now that the state is going into meltdown over the budget deficiency it can no longer fix with bells and whistles and BOND ISSUES to finance deficits (hello--these are TAXES by another name...which cost MORE in the long run).

Lastly, she never participated in any of Riordan's campaigns...another misstatement. And she never ran for Zine's council seat.

Then his assertion that Waldman and Blumenfield are others with "solid progressive credentials"---what a joke!!! Blumenfield has been the gatekeeper for Berman who has voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS on every Iraq bill brought to the floor. And he has been very active in defending this position as well as opposing all efforts to start investigations into impeachment. Waldman's currently benefitting from the so-called "independent" expenditures of the California Dental pac $$$, one of the rightest of the right wing lobby groups in the state (and that "right" is not a synonym for correct).

Dan McCrory, however, does have strong progressive positions, and unfortunately, no money to promote his candidacy. I understand that much of his potential support was cut off at the pass by the Berman forces intervening on Blumenfield's behalf. Perhaps someone can add more to fill out this widespread rumor that Howard, himself, has made most of the calls to major donors everywhere and also contacted the various union leaders and told them to support Bob.

What is certain and on record is that Berman has put $200,000 of his funds gathered for his '08 non-campaign into a so-called "independent" expenditure committee called Valley Democrats for Change(no one runs against him in the primary or general, yet he raised over $900K). Along with Bob's dad's $120K, this group alleges that it's "independent" and not coordinating with Bob's campaign. I've written about this elsewhere. This is accessible through cal-access on the CA Secretary of State's website.

BTW, http://www.dailynews.com/news/...
There has been so much mud flying between Damian's two favorites that the Daily News has finally started to pay attention to the race this week. It will be even more interesting if the editors finally weigh in after the shouting match they witnessed during the editorial board's interviews with Healey, Blumenfield and Waldman. Inexplicably, they had not invited McCrory.

And thanks, Calitics, for giving the space for response.
###

---

by: lindasutton @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:57 AM CDT

The Daily News has weighed in (0.00 / 0)

...and endorsed Stuart Waldman.

Thanks for the clarifications, Linda.

DC

---

by: dcarroll @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]