CA Democrats Stick Their Feet in a Mess

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget22jul22,1,3160607.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I can’t recall if that site requires registration. I haven’t been able to find another link to this article yet.

Briefly the article reports that 11 Democratic members of the CA legislature (11 of the more liberal members) were caucusing in a meeting room at the Capital and forgot that they had an open mike to an intercom system in the building - so for about an hour or so they were discussing strategy while everyone listened in (I guess it took an hour for one of their aids to notice and notify them). The Republicans taped some of the discussion and now have a transcript.

Now this would normally be typically political idiocy but what makes it ugly is the CA budget crisis. Dems have been ripping Republicans for holding up the budget b/c the Reps are refusing to vote for any tax increases. The Dems have been trying to get traction on the Reps for being obstructionist and wanting to hold up the budget, shut down schools, and deprive milk from babies mouths; that sort of thing.

Unfortunately for the Dems, the topic of the overhead meeting was how the Dems could delay the budget so as to further the crisis - since the Reps are taking the blame (partly, along with the governor to a large degree) for the current crisis the Dems figure extending the budget crisis is beneficial. They also discussed using the crisis to generate momentum for various union-backed initiatives next year including an initiative to change the CA Constitution and allow tax increases with 55% of the legislature instead of the current 2/3.

Anyway, I bet this will be a major political firestorm in CA. It makes the CA Dems look really bad and completely erases some of the arguments they’ve been (succussfully) making vs the Republicans lately. Pretty major political blunder IMO.

Its a good example that although I do agree with certain Democratic party ideas on some things, they continue to lack a certain, shall we say, competency. Blech. I think Bush and national Republicans are a bunch of dangerously overconfident and judgemental hypocrits, but the CA Dems and our wonderful governor are a bunch of unrealistic, ineffective, incompetent fools, who’ve managed to spend us into the worst state budget crisis in US history. How hard is it really to find competent, reasonable politician (actually, don’t answer that :) ).

Dan

Here’s another link. I believe this site (The SF Chronicle website) does not require registration:

Dan

Walt Kelly and Pogo would love this…

“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Frankly it’s just another example of how our politicians are far more focused on power - getting it and keeping it, usually by trying to make the other guys look bad - than they are focused on trying to take care of the people in their constituency. Both sides, although the Dems are much better at it. It is, IMO, the key reason that we seem to never solve any key problems in this country.

Members of the Democratic Study Group, a caucus that defines itself as progressive, were unaware that a microphone in Committee Room 127 was on as they discussed slowing progress in an attempt to increase pressure on Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to resolve the state’s $38-billion budget gap.

Last time I checked, you need two groups to have an impasse.

Actually I think the Dems are really, really, bad at it. Bush has done more “under the media radar” constituent pleasing in 3 years, then Clinton did in 8 years.

Actually I think the Dems are really, really, bad at it. Bush has done more “under the media radar” constituent pleasing in 3 years, then Clinton did in 8 years.[/quote]
God damn that liberal media!

edit: Thank god for term limits, because we’ve got a bunch of amateurs running the show in Sacramento. I mean, if the choice is between slick entrenched political operators and amateurs without a clue running the biggest state in the union, who would you pick?

Actually I think the Dems are really, really, bad at it. Bush has done more “under the media radar” constituent pleasing in 3 years, then Clinton did in 8 years.[/quote]

My observation is that you generally see Republicans reacting and responding to Dem accusations and attacks far more than the other way around. For example, if the Republicans were filibustering and preventing as many judicial candidates from being voted on as the Dems are now (regardless of whether you like the nominees or not) the Dems would be on TV nonstop talking about how the Republicans were being “obstructionists” etc. and the Republicans would be scrambling. For whatever reason, over the years Democrats have been very effective at attacking the Republicans and keeping them in a reactive mode.

I’m not sure what you mean with the reference to Bush/Clinton in this context (although I was talking primarily about state and national Congress bodies.) If anything Bush has spent more time praising the “bipartisan” accomplishments of Congress on various bills, having his picture taken arm in arm with Teddy Kennedy, etc., enough so that he has pissed off a lot of conservatives who would prefer he attack the Dems. He also was noted, even by Democrats, for working very effectively and amicably in Texas with both sides of the aisle (I lived in Texas.) Not saying Bush doesn’t have legit areas for criticism, but that typically hasn’t been one of them.

By the way - I’m saying that BOTH Republicans and Democrats spend most of their time trying to figure out how to make the other side look bad so they can get and keep power, rather than spending their time figuring out how to do what’s best for their country/state. It’s just my opinion that the Dems are better at it - I’m sure the Republicans wish they were as good.

Except since 9/11, the democrats have mostly been a bunch of no shows. I’m a democrat, and I from my perspective, they just rolled over to Bush with no fight at all. “Blank check for war on terror? SURE!”

Except since 9/11, the democrats have mostly been a bunch of no shows. I’m a democrat, and I from my perspective, they just rolled over to Bush with no fight at all. “Blank check for war on terror? SURE!”[/quote]

But at the time I think people were pretty shellshocked and I don’t really blame them.

As for the two parties trying to make each other look bad, yes it happens both ways but of course the Republicans are far more focused on it than the Dems. Just look at the damned impeachment BS they trumped up during Clinton’s presidency. I am thrilled that instead of doing their jobs the Republicans were focused on trying to take down Clinton for a damned blow job.

– Xaroc

professional politician = evil, bloodsucking parasite.

There’s like, what, 5 judges they’re blocking? Out of a hundred?

I’m not sure what you mean with the reference to Bush/Clinton in this context (although I was talking primarily about state and national Congress bodies.) If anything Bush has spent more time praising the “bipartisan” accomplishments of Congress on various bills, having his picture taken arm in arm with Teddy Kennedy, etc., enough so that he has pissed off a lot of conservatives who would prefer he attack the Dems. He also was noted, even by Democrats, for working very effectively and amicably in Texas with both sides of the aisle (I lived in Texas.) Not saying Bush doesn’t have legit areas for criticism, but that typically hasn’t been one of them.

Texas Democrats are to the right of NY Republicans; of course he got along with them.

Bush has praised bipartisanship at length in public, but in private he tends to direct his flunkies to compare Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein.

Edit: Screwy, our posts are reversed. And how on earth is Tom Daschle “slimey”? Kennedy, maybe, but Daschle? He’s practically a non-entity.

Ah - no. I’ll look the numbers up (because, being a good arguer, I’m sure you will also. ;) ) but it has been significantly more than that at the significant judgeship level.

Texas Democrats are to the right of NY Republicans; of course he got along with them.

Having lived there for about 13 years, I’d argue that point. The point is that all of the governors I recall before GW, Dem and Repub, did a lot more partisan fighting. Bush moved in and sincerely made an effort to reach out and work with the Democrats. I know it’s hard to give the guy any credit at all for any positive attributes, but his actions demonstrated that he genuinely believed in working in a bipartisan manner. I think he was dumb to think that would work in Washington.

Bush has praised bipartisanship at length in public, but in private he tends to direct his flunkies to compare Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein.

Well, I’ll have to take your word on that since I haven’t been able to sit in on any of Bush’s private meetings (and would be suspicious of the motivations of anyone disclosing something they heard in what was meant to be in confidence.) There are a lot of things I don’t like about the current administration, areas where we’d probably agree, but I do think that Bush was sincere in wanting to work across the aisle, and has done so in numerous cases. (Frankly I think Daschle is one of the slimiest politicians in Washington, and I have a good sized list containing both Republicans and Democrats on that list.)