My quote on the recall:
Electing him will be a slap to the face of the political class, which it badly needs.
From the SJ Mercury News (probably the best paper in California, by the way) today:
Some prominent Democrats read the election as a rebellion against partisan gridlock in general, not a repudiation of their party.
The recall election was a “hell of a wake-up call” for all political leaders across the state, Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson said Tuesday.
“Californians said: `Business as usual is not cutting it. We are sick and tired of partisan bickering. Get the job done,’ ” said Wesson, D-Los Angeles.
And this:
In a memo distributed to Democratic Assembly members three days after the election, their chief campaign strategist, Darry Sragow, had this advice:
“While voters continue to support Democratic ideals, they need reassurance that Democrats also grasp and are prepared to deal with the public’s concerns about jobs and pocketbook issues — the state’s and their own.”
The Democratic caucus, he added, should “put aside whatever differences it may have with the governor-elect and enter into good-faith negotiations regarding the budget.”
Not that I’m smug about it or anything…
Wow. Atleast the Dems seem to have gotten the message. I’m still not sure if the party of the governor, the party I normally support has gotten it; or if they are going to keep up the same ole stuff as long as they are comfortable in their incumbant-protecting districts.
Ok, that’s fine and all. We’ll see which attitude is backed up by deeds. But I have one quibble:
“against partisan gridlock in general”
Has the word “gridlock” been denuded of meaning? Has it been re-defined to mean “any antics the public doesn’t like”? Gridlock? What gridlock?
From everything I can tell, they were passing bills right and left, by the handfull. By the double-handfull. By the score. In the end, by the bushel.
“Gridlock” classically means the inability to get anything through, the inability to get anything done (see, for example, Bush appelate court nominees). The California government was getting *tons* of stuff done – it just wasn’t stuff sane people would want to see done.
So it would seem to me that they have a misdiagnosis somewhere along the line. Either that, or, as I said, the word “gridlock” means something different now.
Examples of “gridlock” would be if the public felt a deep need for, say, lots of legislation favoring Davis’ donors and public employee’s unions that donate $$$ to Democratic office holders, but it wasn’t getting passed through the legislature because of partisan gridlock.
Gridlock would also be, for example, the public had a deeply felt need for emergency legislation to grant drivers licenses to people who evaded our immigration laws, to be given without background checks that might weed out Mohammed Atta and his buddies, but the legislation was being filibustered on the floor.
Gridlock would consist of the public, to take another example, feeling that vehicle registration fees were way too low and needed to be significantly increased, but the government was unable to enact this vital change.
Similarly, gridlock would consist of the public feeling that legislation needed to be passed to provide for significant spending increases, but the bills were all bottled up in committee due to partisan obstructionism.
None of that seems to have been a problem in California over the last six years or so. Therefore, I maintain that “gridlock” is not an accurate description of what was going on which the public found unseemly and intollerable.
Hey people, you are totally missing it. “Gridlock” to Democrats has exactly one meaning: Inability to pass tax increases.
Jeebus, people. The guys you don’t like are trying to find a face-saving way to say “Uncle” and you’re irked that they aren’t suddenly showing up at Hoover Institute seminars and taking notes?
If that’s how you feel about change in California politics, you have to believe that things in Iraq are just falling to pieces … or do you see signs of progress there, but not here?
A.L.
A.L.,
It may be attempted spin, or a “face-saving way to say Uncle,” but the term “gridlock” actually is singularly inappropriate for describing reality under the Davis Administration. There was one big piece of legislation that tied up the works for quite some time–the budget. Yes, they could fairly claim that “gridlock” was holding up the budget. However, the reason Jim Brulte (Republican Senate Minority Leader) wouldn’t let the budget out of the State Senate was because the Democrats were insistent on including tax hikes, while Brulte was adamantly opposed to further increases.
Given that the budget fight was the single major piece of evidence for the alleged gridlock (because tax hikes require a 2/3 majority in CA, which the Dems don’t have), then I’d say it would be fair to describe Herb Wesson’s definition of gridlock as “the Republicans won’t let me raise taxes.”
In addition, I believe that Wesson is flat wrong to claim that the message of the recall was anti-gridlock, given the facts of the matter. First, the CA electorate sent a governor to Sacramento of the opposite party from the majority of the legislature. Second, said governor campaigned strongly on an anti-tax platform, and prior to the election, it was “partisan gridlock” that kept taxes from being added in the legislature.
Finally, yes, I do see progress being made in Sacramento. However, that progress is being made in spite of the Sacramento Democrats, and they are still fighting against the interests of the people of California. (By the way, I believe Wesson was probably spinning, not just being clueless–I’ve met him, and he is certainly a competent politician, as far as I can tell.)
Well, while Porphyrogenitus is right on ‘erb Wesson’s poor word choice, A.L. is right – smarter Dems up here, even ‘erb, are beginning to understand that things ain’t gonna be the way they used to be. But don’t expect peace, love and understanding break out all over the place. If we’re lucky it won’t be any worse than Washington; if we’re unlucky it will be California’s own Oslo Agreement.
I’ll let you figure out who is who in that scenario.
Armed – may I call you Armed? 😉 – it sounded to me like Porphy was questioning the specific issue of the use of “gridlock”, not arguing that this doesn’t represent progress.
Me, I agree that this talk is a hopeful sign – and certainly a vast improvement, in the clue department, over what I was hearing right after the election. We’ll see whether the resultant deeds bear out the signs that the CA Dems are ready to – not “say Uncle to the Republicans”, but “pay attention to the electorate”.
I’ll also be interested to see whether an internal struggle for the CA Democratic Party shapes up out of this. I suspect internal party politics are about to get interesting.
Jeanne –
Sure (although most folks find A.L. to be easier to type). I think Herb was squirting ink in the hopes of spinning his headline, and had some success. I’m more focussed on the “hell of a wake-up call” part of the quote.
And while lots of bills did pass this year (including a little one of my very own!!), the reality is that none of the could come close to dealing with core issues because of the rigid party conflicts. So to me, and to others who know the place better than I do, there has been ‘gridlock’ in Sacramento as far as anything that matters.
A.L.
AL, good site, thanks for the information and education.
But, honestly, while I don’t expect the Democrats to show up at Hoover Institute forums, neither do I expect much of the truth or anything productive in actual action either.
Why? Because they haven’t done any of that in the past. They’ve got a lot farther to fall before hitting bottom.
Davis losing his job was inevitable, once the recall was on, I mean come on – he was a dead man walking. Then raising everyones car tax in the midst of it! How much further removed from working families reality can the Dems be? The extra 200 to 600 bucks is health insurance for a year for some!
Herb pretending to be clued into business’ needs just doesn’t wash. He’s spinning and everyone knows it.
Lets see Boxer lose her seat, and CA go for Bush – now that would be meaningful. That would be the indicator that the people are ready to throw the bums out.
Keep up the good work.
Yah; I was only nitpicking the use of the word “gridlock”. I also haven’t forgotten the reaction after the election; thus I said “we’ll see which attitude is backed up by deeds” (I suspect it will vary by legislator, with some being open to real compromise and others, especially those from Bay-area districts, being intransigent. People vary).
We’ll see what happens; I think that’s fair.
I do think it’s not unimportant what terms people use. They may be saying “uncle” to the wrong thing, in a way that doesn’t “get it”. Or they may be saving face by using euphemismistic terminology so they don’t have to abase themselves; again, we’ll know which based on what people’s subsequent actions are. The actions will prove more important than the rhetoric.
I will say what I probably should have in my first post but neglected to do, and that is that yes, this is a far more encouraging sign than what people were saying in the immediate aftermath of the Recall vote. It shows that some folks, at least, are reflecting on what it means and trying to come to terms with it in a way that re-connects them with the electorate and understands the consequences of being out of touch.