- ‹ previous
- 107 of 2798
- next ›
California's Democrats
In a column about Michael Bloomberg's slow but steady takeover of New York City politics, Michael Tomasky notes that Bloomberg was aided and abetted by the slow but steady deterioration of the city's Democratic Party:
I covered its demise as well as Bloomberg's ascent. The former was far more gruesome to watch. In a city that's six-to-one Democratic in voter
enrolment, there isn't really a plausible mayor among the dozens of elected Democrats who represent the city or some portion of it at the federal, state and local levels.
This sounds eerily familiar. Here in the great state of California, there are something like 10 million registered Democrats. It's one of the bluest states in the country. And yet, when it comes time to find someone to run for governor, there's no one to choose from. When San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom dropped out of the race a few days ago, my first thought wasn't about Newsom at all. My first thought was, "Jerry Brown? Seriously?" But yes: Jerry Brown, a 70-year-old guy who's already been governor twice is now the only Democrat running for governor. That's the best we could do.
The GOP isn't in much better shape, either. Their leading candidate right now is eBay zillionaire Meg Whitman, who barely seemed to know the Republican Party even existed until a couple of years ago. But hey — at least they have two other candidates as well, even if they aren't exactly household names.
Jeez. Jerry Brown. A guy who almost literally won't tell you what he thinks about anything or what he'd like to do as governor. That's it. That's all that California's Democratic Party can produce for the 2010 election. Yikes.
The same could be said of
The same could be said of Massachusetts' executive office. Up until a few years ago, Democrats couldn't get a hold of it.
Texas Too
That's the problem we have in Texas too. The Dems cannot find a real viable candidate, and nobody really likes Perry so you get 2 or 3 independents running. In Texas, since there are no runoffs, you end up with a governor that 61% of the people did not vote for. That really sux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Election...
Maybe this is a general problem in statewide elections, especially in large states? Unless you get a Senator that wants to be Governor, nobody really has any statewide name recognition or record.
As much as I like to make
As much as I like to make fun of California politics, I'm from the state of Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson. Glass houses and all that.
Given the vitriol spewed at
Given the vitriol spewed at politicians and their family members, what intelligent person would willingly ask to run for office? Those who do opt to run have monumental egos. Just what the country needs.
Run Kevin, Run
You'll get my vote.
The lack of Dems who want to
The lack of Dems who want to run for governor in california is probably more a reflection of how terrible of a job it is then any lack of qualified candidates. Seriously, who would want to be in charge of a state with a political process as messed up as california's.
It's a thankless job
The Gov of California would have her hands tied by the dismal budget situation, and there's absolutely nothing she could do about it. Who would want a job where the only course of action open to you would be the painful disembowelment of your state's public infrastructure? No wonder no good Dems are running for it.
Don't think of Jerry Brown
Don't think of Jerry Brown as a retread, think of him as an experienced elder who might bring some worldly wisdom to the job. Then it's not so bad.
It's not just this year
It's not just the current meltdown that has caused this. Democrats have had this problem in the last few governor's races -- weak candidates who are hardly insipring: Gray Davis? Phil Angelidies? Kathleen Brown? But quite honestly, CA Dems are squirrelier than most (and I'm a proud Democrat) and it's hard not to get yourself charged with some act of political incorrectness. for being insufficiently attentive to the needs of whatever lefty special interest group that has a "vision" for CA. None of these groups are able to "give" at all on their issue to embrace a really wining coaltion.
Oh yeah -- and term limits don't help either. Or the cost of CA t.v. markets.
surely you understand
That this is about money. It takes $30 million and upwards to run a statewide campaign for Governor in California, and only a few people can raise that kind of scratch.
Also, you'd have to be a complete idiot to want to run for Governor in this state, given the dysfunction of the legislative process.
If nothing else, Jerry Brown
If nothing else, Jerry Brown harks back to that optimistic time years ago, when California could maybe start a colony on Mars, when there was actually some money in the state coffers, and when Jerry Brown had hair.
I remember those times. They were good.
Lightweights on both sides of the aise?
You can thank term limits for keeping both parties in the hands of rookies and amateurs. Where are Willie Brown and Big Daddy Unruh when we need them?
. . . jim strain in san diego.
NYC Dems
The funny thing is that NY has two completely credible Democratic candidates for mayor, but neither of them wants the job. Chuck Schumer is one; he'd rather be Senator. Floyd Flake is the other. Some people might not have heard of him: a highly respected former US representative, the political Godfather of Southeast Queens, and a bishop in the AME Zion church. But he's not a wealthy man, and can make more money as bishop than in government, with fewer restrictions.
Anthony Weiner is a distant third behind these two powerhouses, but at least he wants the job. Note that all three have one thing in common: federal elective office. The city machine is completely dead, but there is still some talent attracted to the federal level.
(No subject)
Kinda underhanded of you Kevin.
I'm not really sure where you're commin' from. It certainly isn't the California I work & live in. While I like Gavin Newsom, he's a DiFi Democrat, I wouldn't call him a progressive. He is certainly from the middle of the road part of the party other than his gay marriage cred. And honestly, it's exactly that gay marriage cred that would make him less electable.
I voted for Jerry brown in the 70's and I'll do it again...happily. The man has aged well. He's much less apt to pull 'moonbeam' stuff now. He's been elected a series of increasingly more responsible positions through the years and done well at them all.
And you bitch 'cause he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth any more?!? I tell ya, with freinds like you we'd all have Emperess Meg Whitmann as governor next term. I'll take Brown any day over her. Have you heard her adds? She's a toad! Of course the Repubs will love her though.
Do you blame them?
Let's give the California Dems a break, Kevin. Everything you've written about CA over the past year has been about two things: 1. California is completely ungovernable, and 2. California is quickly headed for catastrophe. That makes for a lousy recruitment poster. There are lots of high profile Democratic politicians - Pelosi, Boxer, Harman, et. al. They don't want the job. And they don't want the job because it's only slightly more appealing than an appointment as conductor of a runaway train.
You could elect the most
You could elect the most charismatic, popular, intelligent Democrat as governor and he or she would still inevitably end as a total failure, with no future career in politics and basically viewed as a joke by the national media.
Because of its peculiar institutions, the crazy initiatives process and the 2/3 budget majority requirement, California is simply ungovernable.
It is literally impossible to balance the budget, even if you were willing to make draconian service cuts, because of federal courts overseeing the overcrowded prison system and propositions that lock in spending.
There is actually a pretty deep bench of strong, popular Democrats who could probably win the governor's race. But unfortunately most of them are sane, and thus don't want to get anywhere near the job.
If you actually want to do good things like improve education and expand health care, there's not a thing you can do as the governor. The best you can do is get elected to federal office and try to change things there.
Optimism
If nothing else, Jerry Brown harks back to that optimistic time years ago, when California could maybe start a colony on Mars
==========================================
In the intervening 30 years, California transformed ITSELF into a colony on Mars
Good Riddance
Retread Gov. Moonbeam vs clueless internet millionaire? I'm glad I moved away to Colorado in 2007
Wisconsin, too
Right now, Democrats hold every state-wide office but one, have a 5-3 advantage in House seats, and turned out the state for Barack Obama at levels almost unrivaled in the upper midwest.
But Democrats currently have no candidate running to replace retiring Gov Jim Doyle in 2010. Not one.
Kills me, it does.
folkbum.com
Jackie Speier is a possibility
I'll suggest Jackie Speier as a future possibility. She doesn't have huge name recognition but she is a well informed progressive, and has a long history of serving California in several different positions.
She was part of the fact finding mission to Jonestown in 1978. Congressman Leo Ryan was killed when the group was ambushed as they were boarding the plane to leave. Jackie was shot five times and waited 22 hours for help.
She ran for Lt. Governor and lost in the primary to Garamendi gaining 39% of the vote. Note that Garamendi has now given up that job to take over the vacant congressional seat on the peninsula formerly held by Ellen Tauscher.
Jackie now holds the congressional seat occupied for many years by Tom Lantos.
I think she would be a good governor. Perhaps she has her eye on DiFi's senate seat if she decides not to run again.
No Democrats for Governor of CA
Democrats actually want to help people. California politics is custom built by the people to prevent the governor and the legislature from ever being able to do that...
The CA Governor's mansion is for someone who's an expert at being famous.
Ungovernable state, unappealing job
I hate to agree with everyone else, becaues that's boring, but there is simply no reason for an ambitious Democratic politician who wants a future to run for governor in California. The budget process is effectively controlled by the Republicans, and so all a Democratic governor can do is pick the least-painful things to gut. Who wants to preside over the ongoing destruction of the state's university system? Or slash programs that allow old people to remain in their homes?
The governor's job is for celebrities at this point. In Jerry Brown's case, it is a career capper, a remarkable achievement in its way if he wins. But the only thing that would make me happy about it is that Brown is likely to appoint better judges than his Republican opponent.
Term Limits
Well surely, there are lots of experienced of people in the CA Assembly or Senate who would be interested in running.
Oh yeah. Term limits.
Rolex Milgauss watches
If someone notices a Franck Muller replica on your wrist, be ready for admiration about its originality and, of course, about your taste and unique style.Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Maurice Lacroix watches
Montblanc watches
movado watches
omega watches
oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Piaget watches
Rado watches
Tag Heuer watches
Tudor watches
U-boat watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Rolex watches
Rolex Air-King watches
Rolex Datejust II watches
Rolex Datejust watches
Rolex Submariner watches
Yachtmaster watches
Rolex Day-Date II sale
Rolex Daytona watches
Rolex Explorer watches
Rolex GMT watches
Rolex Sea-Dweller watches
Rolex Day Date watches
Rolex Masterpiece watches
Rolex Milgauss watches