This person Teague has a bright future.

I've met Keith Richman, Keith's a good man. Government reforms that CAPC and others are talking about are needed badly at the state level.

I support them in their efforts to get redistricting legislation passed and remove special intersts from Sacramento.

Here is a good statistic to think about as your legislator heads to Sacramento. The Center for Public Integrity released an article on December 20th stating that for every one legislator in Sacramento, there are 10 lobbyists. Lobbying has now become a billion dollar business.

There were 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence. This would mean by today's California standards for John Hancock and others to sign this sacred document, they would have needed the input of 560 lobbyists.

Could you imagine what the document would look like had 560 lobbyists got a hold of it. "We hold these truths to the self-evident that all men are created equal and we require a bridge of equal diameter to be constructed to nowhere."

And we wonder why things have gotten so complicated.... Everyone needs a special rewrite and earmark.

What is it that allows the lobby industry to get away with what it does? Figure that out and you'll figure out what the real problem is.

If the VCRCC was not dominated by extremist right wing nuts, there would be no need for the Centrists.

GS, Scott, did you guys sign up?

Yes, Katie Teague has a bright future and is proving to be a refreshing moderate leader in these extremeist leadership times.

I am proud to be a member of CAPC and honored to be serving on their Advisory Council.

I've been unaffiliated with any party all my voting life but it's a possibility.

If neither major party were dominated by extremists, single issue candidates and the "status quo" mentalities, there would be no need for an association of centrists because there would already be open debate of issues, allowance for fresh ideas and new faces.
The beauty of CAPC is that it does not demand that any member be registered to a particular party. We will track party, only to make sure the membership is balanced. The mission is election reform, open debate, and support for the candidates that support the CAPC's philosophy and mission.

Seems like it is a bunch of Republicans that want to change the rules because Democrats keep getting elected.

If we live in such partisan extreme times, how come Arnold won two elections to be governor?

It could have been Dems that were there first...but it wasn't. It was a few Repubs that were disgusted, in part, by the increased extremism in their own party and decided to do something about the political mess created by both parties.

As for Schwarzenoggin. Get real. All his reelection proves is you can fool most of the people, at least twice (didn't you learn anything from Bush?). For a state that once prided itself on progressive fiscal management today's voters were quick to let "Cheap Credit" Arnie go on a spending spree that our kids will be paying for for decades to come.

If any comments of yours have been erased on this or another entry please don't be offended. I have been cleaning up messages left by machines ( spam ) and I sometimes erase a real message.

Feel free to post the same message again if it is erased.

On another note:

Something big is flying around Ventura County political circles. If anyone wants to tell me more, please e-mail briandennert@yahoo.com . I will not post your name, organization, etc.

Thanks,

Brian

It remains to be seen if any "centrist" movement will have any real impact here in California or other states for either party. For any position beyond school boards to date, it appears to be political business as usual.

CAPC is not a good fit for single issue people. It's a great fit for those that are disenfranchised by the current practices of the two major parties. It appears the sole mission of the GOP and Dems is incumbent protection. This is why candidates like Bob Pohl and Ferial Masry got no party funding from their respective parties. And therefore, no debates and no honest discussion of the issues.
Our plan is to create a network of education and information on issues and candidates that can be relied upon. Decline-to-state (DTS) voters don't have anyplace to go for this information.
We may not solve every political problem in California, but combine the numbers of moderate Dems, GOP and centrist DTS and we will absolutely be a political force in 2008.
We are currently filling our Advisory Board, and I think those interested will be pleased to see who has agreed to become a member.

I can see CAPC catching on and becoming a major mover and shaker. Most people are not extremists to the left or right. I would say that in Ventura County the republican central committee is currently run by extremists, but nationally I would say the new democratic majority is much closer to the center. With Arnold I think he won by moving to the center, 2007 may be the year of CAPC.

BTW - The Roger Anderson in the photo is my dad, Roger Anderson. You can put him in the moderate column too.

If you ever have more photos to post send them to me.

CAPC has had a huge response in Ventura County, which has been very gratifying and inspiring. If you are interested in learning more, please send an e-mail to me at dteague1@adelphia.net and I can send the business plan and membership form. I'm in Washington DC for the next week and won't have access to my personal computer until then but feel free to send in your e-mail.

We do have a number of Democrats involved with CAPC and are the hunt for more. So any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Someone suggested that we are a Republican front group - we are emphatically and at some levels very amusingly not - the machinery of both parties is broken when it comes to serving the public good.

Brian, I'm curious. What are you hearing? If you drop a hint, maybe you'll get some responses.

I can say that 2008 will be very interesting and CAPC will be rating all the candidates based on input from our Advisory Council and general membership.

If you want to be part of the solution to what currently ails both national and local politics, please join us.

Brian:

I have expressed interest in CAPC as the goals and objectives tend to be very inclusive.

GS: In terms of lobbying, many argue that the only way to stop the fire sale of the public interest is to drain the swamp. That is, reduce tax revenue until legislators have nothing left to give away and are forced to serve their constituents.

While high taxes ie revenue is the root cause in my book, I've never really believed that a single bullet would end the problem. Plus, I notice reducing taxes is usually replaced with a "no new taxes pledge" come campaign season. Two different things entirely.

If one talks to many non-voters who are registered the answer seems to always be the same. Why encourage the giveaway with my vote? Why volunteer my time to someone who the minute they get into office is going to go into payback mode? Interestingly enough, I've heard, but can't totally verify statistics that many people who tend not to vote tend to be the highest volunteers for non-profits and churches.

Seriously, if you watched a sporting event and the referee had really close relations with one team over the other would you really trust this person to ref a fair game?

If everyone thought sports were rigged, they would lose spectators. Politics is having the same problem. It looks and feels rigged.

I can't say that I can blame those registered non-voters as the process is in dire need of reform to bring people like this back to the table.

Brian: Have you joined CAPC?

Scott, all you say is true but its symptomatic of the problem, not the cause. We all KNOW there's a busy market in political favors being swapped back and forth between politicians and lobbyists yet most voters reelect their own incumbents, suggesting that for most voters such unethical (and often corrupt) behavior is anecdotal at best. If that's the case, then somewhere along the lines the voters aren't being fully informed about such behavior. Why is that? What is it about our system that leaves voters uninformed about such behavior?

Hi Brian and CAPC:

This exchange has been a welcomed real-time education for me on the dynamics of politics in action. Thank you.

If I may, I would like to make a pitch for Liberalism. Liberal Democrats in particular.

Being Liberal, in my view, means the ABILITY (recognizing that that "ability" is constantly a work-in-progress: that the need to be humble is a constant work-in-progress and that as one learns more one realizes that there is so much more one does not know!) and WILLINGNESS to work to take in, to understand, all views, even contradictory ones, and work patiently, compassionately, and reasonably through them and arrive at a consensus that works, flexible enough to be able to take in new information and changing situations. It seems to me that it is the Liberal tradition that allows Democrats to be centrists through process rather than absolute labels.

Perhaps it is my personal experience, quirks in temperament, personality and cognitive style that allow me to feel more comfortable -- though not, by far, the best example -- in this tradition. Others feel more comfortable in other traditions. They are all needed.

Part of that experience has been working in politics, one way or another, since 1970, first
during middle school then through grassroots politics, etc. It seems that there have always
been "extremism" one way or another, to some degree or another.

Those who sought Nixon's impeachment were viewed as extreme; at the time, Ford's pardon of Nixon was not viewed by most as a "moderate" action. It was in the service of protecting the Republican party. The party for which Ford had the ambition to become House Majority Leader.

With all that, at the time of Ford's bid for election against Jimmy Carter, I walked precincts for Gerald Ford. I was not old enough to vote, but I wanted to help. I thought, at the time, Jimmy Carter would interject too much religion into politics. For me, Carter was too extreme.

Certainly, these are not on the far extreme sides
on the extreme spectrum.

For me, to work to finding solutions to our most
pressing social and political problems rests in re-investing more

1. in public education in ways that engage students in allowing them to have a much greater role in governing their own schools -- as I and my generation did when we went to school -- so they are prepared to do so when they graduate (my high school also had a every-other-daily newspaper and student journalists were taught to and were expected to do investigative reporting);

2. making government at all levels more transparent and accessible, especially and initially, at the local level: in Ventura, there
have been years of chagrin because we let the state university get away from us; no more! how about city AS university? Like this blog, there are plenty of opportunities -- through webinars and shop talk, etc -- to integrate government and education that advances democracy and good government; and

3. more reading, talking, listening, writing, blogging and help journalism -- free speech -- become central to our lives. Long live the spirit of Ben Franklin! Active Citizenship is the New Centrism!

The whole spectrum of political views, the give and take of checks and balances, free speech and
responsible citizenry . . . it's all good!

Blough,
God bless former President Ford. Ford was quoted as saying "George W. Bush made a huge mistake by invading Iraq." So who is right? Bush or Ford? Also Blough have you joined CAPC?

What I have seen in my discussions with those interested in CAPC are the following-
-Excitement that the "next generation" can make a difference in a political system that is broken and abused.
-Desire for political reform and influence.
-Relief that they aren't expected to hate their neighbor because of their party affiliation.

While I was campaigning I made a huge effort to register voters.

Our campaign registered more than fifty first time voters. For the time period that we registered voters there were a total of 335 registered voters for the entire County. that would mean that we registered 14.9% of all voters for the County and we only registered voters in district IV which is one of the more conservative districts.

Having three sons ages 18, 20 and 22 we understandably registered voters within the ages of 18-24. I registered the majority of voters at the festivals that I attended which were 99% 18-24 years of age.

Although 18-24 age voters are usually the worse for voter turnout I do believe there is a growing trend towards that generation being disenfranchised with party affiliation. Most of the young people I spoke with could care less about party politics. They are more concened with their friends fighting wars and dying. They are also concerned about how to afford to live in CA and make a decent living.

I can report that it was maybe only around two who registered as Republicans, ten Democrats, most as declined to state, and several for Peace and Freedom (because they liked the name)

I never tried to influence what party they should choose and actually encouraged them to do some research on their own in order to better understand the individual parties.

I have never been one to impose my party beliefs on others, I believe it is personal like my religion.

It was probably that naivity that cost me the election.

While I was campaiging and speaking to youth they were rarely concerned with party affiliation, they only cared about the issues.

It was when I walked precincts and spoke with individuals and homeowners who were 50-70 that party affiliation came up and the majority of those that inquired wanted to make sure I was a Republican.

I just thought I would share my direct experience with others.

I noticed when the VCRCC had a booth to register voters it said "REPUBLICANS REGISTER TO VOTE HERE"
I wonder if a person came to them and wanted to register for a different party if they would turn them away.

I actually had a police cadet tell me I should not register people "like that", which were some young folks with piercings, tatoo's, mohawks etc.

It seems undemocratic to me to target only "certain" types of voters or to profile and register individuals who you think would follow your beliefs.

Then again it seems rare when politics=ethics=integrity

Prenta lost because the VCRCC threw her under the bus! They poured thousands into Dean Kunicki's campaign because he is the lapdog of the VCRCC.

There will be a correction, there always is when any market becomes too extreme or narrow.

Tech stocks, housing, politics.

Eventually the moderate vision will make the correction even if it takes a new generation to help the pendulum become back in balance.

This is the point I was trying to illustrate based on who we registered and their attitude towards party politics.

I am curious, does anyone know the average age of the VCRCC members, I think the majority of the reps. for District IV are in their 60's.

I am personally not ready to give up on the Republican Party. Being a Moderate member of the Republican party is kind of like raising teens, you need tough love, you love the person not the behavior.

I do not blame the VCRCC for my loss. The better marketer/advetiser was elected. The controllers of the VCRCC have a clear and narrow vision, they stayed focused and won.

The voters/people are responsible for the government and representives that we have.

I will continue to represent the students that the County Schools serve as I have done so for more than a decade as a volunteer and professionally as an advocate. I will continue to advocate for a high quality education for all students.

Question for ML Peterson-
Do you believe that unions have undue influence on politics and policy in the county and state?

Ms. Cornejo,
By going after unions you are sounding very partisan. Without unions we would all be working for a dollar a day, have child labor, no 40 hour work week, no middle class, etc. Considering the big wigs on Wall St. gave themselves 40 million dollar bonuses this year do you really think the existence of unions has hurt big business? If you want a Country without unions try Red China or Cuba.

S Gompers - It was just a question!

And the emphasis is "UNDUE" influence on politics and policy.

I used to work for an airline and was a dues-paying union member - belonged to the Machinists for 6-1/2 years. I have mixed opinions about unions. They serve a purpose, but sometimes overreach and get a little greedy. They are, after all, a lobbying group, just like pharmaceutical companies and gaming tribes!

There is funny money everywhere. Democrats banned ear marking, do you agree Blough? Some stories about money going back and forth between campaigns and lobbyists. Are Americans morally incompetent when it comes to honest government? Maybe there should be an investigation if there isn't one. Drain the swamp. Think globally, act locally. Remove the 'gators from Ventura County.

Depends on the meaning of UNDUE INFLUENCE! If a union's message is clearer and more focused, is that UNDUE INFLUEMCE? If unions match the spending by NYC bankers, as they did to defeat Arnie's props, is that UNDUE INFLUENCE? And if the unions just happen to be anchored to the left of center when the entire nation was running away away from the far right, is that UNDUE INFLUENCE?

My Dad was a NY State GOP leader and on several occasions I was fortunate to have met Nelson Rockerfeller and others who made no bones about the GOP and Labor being natural enemies. My Dad attributed to N.R. something along these lines, (para) "Republicans understand that what's good for Commerce is good for the Nation while Democrats understand that what's good for the Worker is good for the Nation. Other than that they're both wrong on everything else."

You are correct, Ms. Prenta. If you want young people to get involved, they will do so when it is clear to them that an issue is vital to their futures.

For example, in the fifties, sixties and seventies:
1.) they were instrumental in ending much censorship of ideas and language through the free speech movement that began here in California;
2.) their courage and commitment brought an end to Jim Crow in the South and helped make the voting rights act a reality;
3.) they served as this nation's conscience and helped lead the nation to end a misguided, seemingly endless war in Vietnam; and
3.) they supported the rights of women for equal treatment under the law and in the workplace.

Want to see them get involved again and in a hurry? Re-establish the draft (for both young men AND women) while this foolish war in Iraq continues and you will see it happen overnight.

One important note: the Greens (now with a HQ in Ventura) and other alternative parties serve an important role in helping the young get directly involved in an important way in campaigns by giving them some first hand leadership experience that many may find is unavailable to them in the two major private clubs . . . er, I mean political parties.

GS:

Sorry for the late reply.

Does not a doctor treat the symptoms as well as the affliction?

If citizens are uninformed, but I have an opportunity to fix a smaller problem that is symptomatic of a major problem, I would say fix the smaller one first, but continue to the larger problem.

Just because a problem is symptomatic of a major root problem does not make it any less painful.

Someone asked about earmarking...

In terms of earmarking democrats have not banned it as someone said. All they have said is that each earmark will be made in the open.

I have no problems with more transparency. While it may be less than the whole loaf, half a loaf is better than none at all.

Rumor:

In the spirit of the Democrats new openness on earmarking, how come Nancy Pelosi isn't allowing C-Span to install and control it's own cameras in the House?

I thought it wrong under the previous rules that we can't fully see what is going on in House.

I wish Pelosi was 100% better than Hastert instead of 50% too. Of course, Scott Blough supported the party that kept Hastert in power for many years.

SCOTT: I have no problems with trying to treat political symptoms but traditionally such attempts only serve to help voters forget about the underlying political disease. Look how quickly the Nation forgot about Campaign Reform once it was announced that a couple of legislators were going to do something about it. What little reform was passed simply got rid of the collective headache for a short while, even as the disease continues to spread unchecked. Aspirin's fine but it won't cure the disease.

GS:

I appreciate your response. It does happen in cycles like Donna discussed above and I believe that we are headed for some real reforms soon.

Red Herring Rumor:

I was against the previous republican congress on freer CSPAN access.

How come I can watch the decision-making to who get's thrown off "Survivor", but can't witness the inner workings of the people's house just prewritten speeches?

Do you think "Survivor" or decisions made in the House have more impact over our lives?

Scott, what do you think of our national leaders convening behind closed doors to deliberate in secret, on matters of the utmost importance to the Nation's future and while under orders to not leak a word of those deliberations to the public?

GS:

That's a fair question. Feel free to give me an example of what you consider the utmost importance. In terms of national security questions, I have no problems with closed meetings that deal with classified material.

However, I will say that I supported the GAO's case to get the Energy Task Force minutes by the Vice President. I didn't feel that met the merit of a need for secrecy.

A major question on closed door sessions without national security questions I have is if it is of the utmost importance why can't the public know about it?

I would think the government would want to educate people if it was a matter of utmost importance.

One possible concern, of course, is that you want everyone to be able to speak freely, and not worry that each word was being measured.

Owen:

I agree with your sentiment, however, if it's in the public's best interest why would you worry? If your not willing to lose popularity for your ideas, then what's the point in having them?

BTW: I read your blog piece on Billy Graham and the Russian woman who wanted you to thank him personally, being that you were from America. I loved the story.

The Constitutional Convention was held behind closed doors and the contents of the deliberations were withheld from public scrutiny just so the participants could speak freely, without fear of public opinion. The Founders wisely understood that for the System to function the People must judge the outcome of their representatives' deliberations and not the style of their debate.

Cheney's energy end-run around Congress was not a matter of our representatives deliberating a question of importance and SHOULD NOT be done behind closed doors...I agree. For the most part debate on the floor of the House or Senate SHOULD be covered to some extent. But at best unrestricted scrutiny of Congress's deliberations, including closeups of a congressman in the wings nodding off or picking his nose would serve no purpose except to provide an election time weapon against him. At worst, such scrutiny would end any pretense of frank and reasonable debate.

I would say your example is exception not the rule. Here's an example for you...

So, if CNP met behind closed doors and decided on a new constitutional framework that was adopted by Congress, this would be acceptable to you?

Wouldn't want any public scrutiny, right?

I don't think scrutiny has ever decreased debate on an issue. In fact, I believe it to be just the opposite.

GS:

To my understanding, The framework for the 1787 Constitutional Convention also did not produce the Bill of Rights.

It wasn't until public scrutiny and mounting pressure of a 2nd constitutional convention that would undue the 1st constitutional convention's compromises that the Bill of Rights was brought forth in the 1st Congress as a preemptive maneuver to undue the whole private constitutional convention's compromises.

The basis of our republic is having the information to make educated decisions about the future of our nation. Public scrutiny of decisions is key to liberty.

GS: I checked on the 1st Constitutional Convention. There were some real roilings over some of the compromises from the public at large and the Bill of Rights was Madison's way of keeping the original convention's compromises alive and diffusing some of the angst over the decisions made at private meetings.

I agree there should be a balance as to encourage open debate, but just feel the balance should move more toward public information, not less.

Mr. Blough,
What did you think of Bob Larkins Op-Ed piece in the Star today comparing the CRP to the KKK?

Hey Machiavelli, did you also read that Arnie and Keith Richman are once again going after pensions? Last time they tried to take benefits away from the widows and orphans of fallen police and firefighters, sick, sick, sick!

Regarding Mr. Larkin's op-ed piece - many of the facts he cited were very true.

I think the GOP as a whole is changing but the old guard isn't - which is why the Republicans keep putting up candidates that can't get elected in California.

Don't know how true the KKK comment is - I haven't been to any of the CRP conventions. The local Republican party leadership is virtually all male and all white. The 2006 Republican slate was virtually all male and all white. We do have a female Republican assembly member but I don't think she is allowed to talk to anyone without a male staffer being present.

I do know a lot of females who are Republicans (myself included). I also know a lot of minorities that are Republicans (but feel out of the mainstream). But I don't think either group can related to the current crop of candidates and elected officials and party "officials".

I'd would have more respect for Bob Larkin's words but he supported the recent extremist takeover of the Central Committee and continues to serve on the Lincoln Club - which is chaired by many of the same people. So it is hard to take him seriously.

Leslie:

Re: "Undue Influence of Unions"

I support unions. Unions matter in the creation of national wealth and in sustaining the middle class.

No question, unions, like any other organization, have needed reform.

Union flaws outweigh the benefits they provide for a country's economic stability. Unions are a important way for employees to articulate and negotiate the monetary value of their work. They also assure that our American values are extended to the workplace.

Unions have been easy punching bags for political and social class reasons.

A good introduction to unions is Michael D. Yates' WHY UNION MATTERS.

In the very near future, I believe unions will need to look and be much more like professional organizations like the AMA and the ABA.

If there is going to be international economic stability, union influence needs to increase not diminish. If unions were stronger in Mexico, if there were fairer wages, less workers would need to cross the border.

Unions need better organization, to be more innovative, and have more influence.

No, I don't believe unions have undue influence.

Re: Centrists/Moderate Republicans

I am wondering what Dennert bloggers think about
the following excerpt from The New Republic? Does
it have application to what CAPC is trying to do
in Ventura County?

In the 9.25.06 issue of The New Republic, its editors argued that it was time to "wipe out moderate Republicans." They argued:

"This November, it's time for voters to wipe out the remnants of the GOP's moderate wing--and without regrets.

"When GOP moderates appeal to the spirit of bipartisanship or claim they can influence their leadership, they are recalling a bygone era. For the longest time, U.S. parties lacked ideological coherence. Northern liberals voted Republican and Southern conservatives voted Democrat, with the result that party affiliation meant less in the United States than in nearly any other democracy. In this world, it made sense to evaluate your senator or representative less on party affiliation than philosophical convictions.

"This system still held sway the last time Democrats controlled Congress. As Bill Clinton learned, party moderates felt no obligation to support his agenda. Centrist Democrats from oil-producing states sunk Clinton's broad-based energy tax. Moderates allied with the insurance industry against his health care reform. If you wanted to circumscribe the Clinton agenda, then electing moderate Democrats was a good way to go about it."

Does Larkin support the Stricklands wing of the party?

One has the distinct impression that the current Republican Party leadership in California (and this county) has a problem with the XIX Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whereby women were given the right to vote. That party leadership will not nominate women for important offices or support them for election should one or two of them manage to get the nomination.

The most glaring example: California has 53 congressional representatives and 19 of them are women, but only 1 (Mary Bono) is a Republican.

Additionally, one has only to look at the VCRCC coup and the election for 4th district county supervisor for confirmation of this operating principal on the local level.

ML Peterson:

I've read Why Unions Matter by Yates. It is a good intro, but not much is talked about regarding public employee unions, which is what I think Leslie wants to hear more about.

In terms of pensions, the Govenror has structured a bipartisan task force yesterday to look into pension reform. They will report back in one year. Many cities, counties and school districts are facing major unfunded pension commitments because of promises made away from public scrutiny in closed session.

A really good article came out from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association discussing new GASB accounting rules stating public agencies must fully dislclose unfunded liabilities. Once this takes effect, we the taxpayers will probably see where our local governments really are on controlling these long term accruals.

The article goes on to say according to the US Census California public employees are the highest paid in the nation, yet the minute a discussion of the topic comes out public employees and their allies want to say anyone who talks or writes about it is being partisan.

Well, what proposal would these public employees put forth to justify the unfunded liability system as it is?

"Stay the course" doesn't seem to be a viable option for public employee unions.

Machivelli:

I don't think Larkin gave a fair representation of the Republican party when he compared their diversity to that of the KKK.

Is not Larkin a white male? What if I assumed as he does about the republican party that he has positions on diversity like the KKK because he is white?

His assumption is blatantly unfair.

The one thing I've always liked about the Republican party is their focus on individualism. Individual entrepreneurship and the virtues of limited interference to pursue your dreams.

I've volunteered for people on both sides of the aisle, but generally tend to favor a strong small business/entreprenuership economy. I don't really believe either party really understands this group.

I believe that the continued emergence of the conglomertization of products/services into concentrated areas will result into a small business populism politics that will neither be aligned with the union politics of democrats or the laissez-faire right.

The group of business people that our elected officials say, "you just need to compete better" are the ones I tend to align myself with as I believe it's not a viable response.

Re: VCRCC "coup" and Women

As a Democrat, I do not have the best access to the ins-and-outs of the Republican party.

It is my understanding that the former leadership of the VCRCC were voted out because of the former chair's endorsement of Tennenbaum, Gallegly's Republican opponent during the primary.

From that standpoint, the action seems reasonable. I think even a political layperson would agree that that endorsement, if it is true, would be irresponsible. No matter one's personal views -- that should be secondary if one is the chair of an official organization of the Republican Party -- one would be obliged to endorse the Party incumbent who has so much seniority in the Party.

If that is the primary reason for the ouster, it was reasonable to remove the former chair before
the November election.

I am a Liberal Democrat and a feminist. As I understand, two of the VCBE Governing Board Members are on the VCRCC. These two trustees are not anti-women or even anti-strong women. When we disagree and have vigorous debates, it is because of my political point of view. In fact, one of the members who has been criticized as a "lap dog" of the VCRCC has been impressive in helping me establish a better working relationship with one of the VCBE members who is very "traditional" in his approach to women leaders. We have been able to develop a more coherent governing process because of these two men.

I was skeptical before the election, but his conciliatory actions have continued even after his re-election and his increased participation within the Republican Party.

Having said that, there are challenges to move forward a few of my Liberal policy objectives. I have to work much harder to find common ground
and develop policy that works for our diverse board.

Yes, I wrote DIVERSE. I would personally prefer that our Board included more cultural and political diversity. That's not my call. That is each region's voters' call.

Our Board is DIVERSE in the sense of differing thinking styles, professional background, age,
and educational priorities.

We have the shared belief in the need to have a strong Governing Board: we serve as part of the necessary checks-and-balance in the democratic process at the local level. We are there to make good public policy, to set direction, and develop
a shared vision with the Superintendent of Schools Office. Together, we are the Ventura County Office of Education. Elected Representatives, not administrators or managers, make policy. That distinction is important, especially in PUBLIC
EDUCATION.

Each member of our board respects that central principle and our limited role in making that work well at the local level.

From my limited experience on the VCBE, I have found no "lap dogs" to any political party.

Do I and my fellow board members have political values and convictions? Yes. Do we choose to work through political parties to express those values and convictions? Yes. Are we flawless and unerring in our actions? No.

These values and convictions inform our discussions and debates when we work on policy
and decisions; they do not enslave us, I think, to the point of preventing our work toward non-partisan solutions to educational problems.

Aren't we all sick of the radio-talk-show style of political discourse?

The Republican Party has a huge gender equity problem. I would be exceedingly grateful for a thoughtful discussion about the many and much more complex reasons for this inequity. While the inequity is more pronounced in the Republican Party, it is also evident in the Democratic Party.

Also, women in political leadership positions are not all saints, either. How can we hold all accountable and be sensitive to the impact of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination?
I am constantly working on that one from both sides: not to be oversensitive as a woman of color and not take for granted others' sensitivities.

It's hard work. How about some help?

I support both women and men in leadership positions. We should gauge people on the conent of their character and their efforts and commitments to issues that improve our lives.

Blough,
Do you really think the current makeup of the VCRCC reflects mainstream republicans like yourself? Do you really think at the National level they have carried out republican values? In terms of unions and highly paid employees isn't that what we have been told the American dream is about? About making money and achieving in life? Has Wal Mart turned the American dream upside down and convinced workers that they should not have healthcare or a pension or good wages because that would hurt Wal Mart profits and instead of 40 million dollar payouts for the CEO he might only get 30 million if the workers were treated fairly? In terms of GASB the effects have been overstated by corporate America and is being used as an excuse to attack the pensions of police and firefighters who republicans praise out oneside of their mouths and curse out the otherside.

Its long past the days when anyone can claim, with a straight face, that the Republican credo supports individual initiative and commercial freedom. They do not. The GOP machine has long ago been hijacked by BigBiz and has been used to stack the deck in its own favor. From financial regulatory changes, to the bailout of hedge funds, to the auctioning off of individuals' financial and medical details, to the unprecedented changes in contract law to favor BigBiz over the individual, the GOP (and virtually every conservative congressional Dem) has loaded the dice against the individual AND small business alike.

Put the myth to rest. I don't blame Republicans in general but I do blame the GOP extremists that have hijacked the Party and put expediency ahead of National welfare.

Scott:

I beleive the issue of unfunded liability is partisan in terms of each party's view on taxes.

Unfortunately, there is little movement on either side.

I believe that citizens and corporations are underfunding government and those employees who
do the work that sustain our quality of life.

Effective investment in government is essential to economic development. Public employees are integral and essential in that. In my view,
it is not private or public; it is public and private working well together.

There needs to be change on both sides of the issue: employee retirement protection (for those working in the private as well in the public sectors) and protection of public funds so that particular union leaders are not abusing their influence on particular legislatures.

Transparency and access to public finance records
and decision making process are essential if there
is going to be reform. I also consider any business on any stock exchange falls under public finance.

We also have to have a long overdue discussion regarding taxes. Taxes are a necessary and useful public finance tool in creating and sustaining
wealth and all the indicators for a good quality of life for all citizens.

The tragedy of the recent Shekell fire
underscore the need for adequately funding government and the consequences if it is not.

Machiavelli:

I hardly think most Republicans would think me a mainstream republican. Weren't you calling me a green when I wrote that topic on green markets. In general, labels tend to simplfy people's political positions when life and people are not that simple.

GS: While you may think my beliefs archaic and inconsistent with what is going on currently, it doesn't dismiss my beliefs as false. There are going to be great changes in politics and the way government's been run. I hope to contmnue to participate and do my part to help correct some of the excesses.

ML Peterson:

We are undertaxed? How much more do we need to pay to correct the impending pension crisis?

If everyone paid 100% percent of there incomes would it have stopped the Shekel fire?

2 unrelated comments/questions-

Is it wrong for a county chairman to endorse the only party candidate that is a both on the ballot and actively campaigning, when the only other candidate very publically announces his withdrawel from the race?

I look forward to a very transparent discussion of charter schools in this county - particularly disclosures on the true owners and all those benefitting from the profits of tax dollars being spent on the schools.

Scott: I in no way try to demean your beliefs. In fact I applaud them and I also hope we can somehow get back to a day when they are once again realized. That day will not come about, however, if the GOP rank & file continue to be snookered by their extremist leadership and led to believe the Party still practices the ideals they long ago abandoned. Dump the extremist leaders and those ideals can be reinvigorated. Blurring the differences between the Parties will make it happen faster. The CAPC has taken a step in the right direction.

I think the problem is that Democrats don't have any threat of a Republican takeover. If they did they would be better at responding to voters interests. Every year the Republicans from across the state throw up the most reactionary candidates then act surprised when they lose.

Tony Strickland had some popular ideas, but voters are tired of the Bill Simon wing of the party. They never gave him a chance because he seemed so much like 1994 all over again.

In the new year maybe there will be more candidates like the governor and less like Mike Dunn. With no changes Ventura County will turn blue. The average voter wants safe schools that have high standards, not a left OR right wing agenda.

How about we all band together and try to "retire" a few more people?

You could also just wait for term limits to end the reign.

ML:

My point about the gender make up of the congressional delegation from the so-called "alpha state" is simply this: if Republicans want to win more seats there - or in other offices statewide - they will need to nominate and support more women for those posts.

I am not saying there is not some gender discrepancy in the Democratic Party or that women are more capable or honest than men. The numbers, however, tell the story: most voters in California are women. My guessw: when they see that one of the two major parties seems to go out of its way NOT to nominate and support women candidates, it is something less than a motivator them to take that party seriously. All voters - women included - want to believe that the party they support is for people just like they are. However, that is a little hard to believe when voters do not see anyone like themselves nominated.

Why women do not get nominated more often might make for an interesting discussion.

My guess is women don't get nominated as much for the same reason the regular Joe Bloe on-the-street doesn't get nominated....they're rarely members of the political insider clubs giving and taking favors. The women that are on the inside (like Mikels) get nominated but politics is still heavily influenced by a guys-only culture. That culture is steadily changing and perhaps the national mess our extremist leaders have gotten us into will help speed up that change and encourage more women to bring their pesrpective to the game. We can only hope. After all, the most productive & progressive world leaders of the past millenium have been women.

Like Audra Strickland?

Is this new Smyth guy that is taking over for Richman more like Strickland or Richman? Anyone know?

Scott: Yes, the general public and CORPORATIONS
are undertaxed. Warren Buffett was right. There needs to be reform to help small businesses. Health care and workmen's comp are the hefty expenses. I'll get you some data. Looking forward to this discussion.

On the Shekell fires: I was referring to the regulatory oversight that gets neglected because there isn't enough staff to do it adequately. The company that wasn't shutdown because of the lack of follow up is an example of things falling through the cracks because our agencies are often spread too thin.

When we look at the kind of budget there is for
making movies and then compare it with the budgets we accept that funds essential services like police, fire, public health (as in epidemiology), environmental protection, education etc., I think we should be embarrassed. That we have public agencies that work as well as they do can be attributed to the incredible dedication of the vast majority of our public servants.

Re: Women in politics: I think much has to do with money and time needed (gladly!) to raise children. Women have a great deal harder time raising money to be competitive with men. Most women who have been competitive have had husbands with pretty substantial financial resources. As we all live longer, women will have more opportunities to enter and be successful in politics because we will be able to pursue higher paying careers after children have grown and will have enough time to save our own money to finance our own campaigns or campaigns of younger women.

Re: VCRCC. If I remember from newspaper accounts, the chair continued to endorse Tennenbaum even after Gallegly decided not to retire. When Gallegly re-entered the race, it seems reasonable to have expected a re-evaluation and then endorsement of the incumbent. If Gallegly had decided not to run, it seems improper that the chair would endorse any candidate if it is an open race. The chair ought to provide all candidates an equal opportunity to get their messages out to fellow party members; that would encourage more discussion among the different party "camps."

Re: Charter Schools. Charter Schools are not all the same. I am against those that are primarily set up as for-profit businesses. I agree with you Leslie that there needs to be more transparency.
I have some real concerns regarding the over-specialization of schools, that includes
magnet schools.

They are easier to manage, but I think they do a disservice in preparing our children to participate in a dynamic global work environment and in a diverse society.

The kind of connectedness provided in many charter and magnet schools is developed in a much too narrow learning environment. I think there will be several unintended negative consequences: students may only be able to feel connected in highly specialized environments. What happens when they are asked to function in environments outside the specialized areas? I think academies within comprehensive high schools would be more effective.

The best kind of connectedness is the result of having great teachers in classrooms with less than 30 students, with higher math and English, carpentry, and other more difficult courses that require much more prior knowledge and a high level of skill to be around 20 students.

That is much more expensive. Needed if we are going to have meaningful and sustainable learning that is transferable to the "real" world.

Finally, I am interested in learning how Dennert bloggers define "public" education? "public" schools?

Do we still have "free public education"?

Thanks.

ML Peterson:

I'm interested in your data saying I'm undertaxed as the only data I know about is my paycheck every two weeks where I see the government take a pretty heafty portion away and then right around april I get to write another check.

When I hear someone say they think I and others are undertaxed I think of how I'm going to make my mortgage payment next month or pay my already excessive property taxes.

The tax structure is designed to punish families. Sure you get a paltry child credit or whatever, but basically it's designed to make sure your kids, if you can afford any, are raised by childcare facilities and not by parents, especially in California.

Second, it punishes the virtue of work. If all my money went to government programs why work at all?

I'll do what they do in Europe and sit in the park and play chess all day. There tax structure makes work not pay and that is why they have high unemployment rates because to grow is a sin in those countries.

I wouldn't say we are undertaxed so much as mistaxed and in some cases overtaxed. Due to Cost of Living increases, I often joke with many of my friends that the government taxes us like wealthy people, yet we live like paupers in California.

I'm against tax increases, expecially after reading about the hijinx of what government functionaries do with our money. Whenever someone says they want more of my money in taxes I tell them to read the Little Piglet Book about the amount of government pork the government already wastes.

Wasteful spending practices indicates to me we should be given tax reductuions, not tax increases. Why give them more money to waste paying back contributors at our expense?

I do appreciate that you admitted that you want to raise taxes. Most democrats won't.

They hide behind language like "investments" and other non-offensive words to the public already reamed by a punitive tax structure.

To me, the people's money should be treated as holy by government officials who often treat it like their own piggy bank. It should either go to things that help their communties or should be in their pocket. Most of it should be in their pocket as it gives people more money to help their communities, their religious organizations, and their non-profits that impact their local community.

There are plenty of examples of nations that allow its citizens to keep almost all of their income, to dispose of it in any altruistic fashion they choose: Russia, all the Blankistans, Bolivia, Columbia, most African nations, most underdeveloped and impoverished nations. There are absolutely NO examples of well-functioning nations that do the same.

Its easy to forget that the social, political and economic infrastructure that's evolved over 225 years is the primary reason that this Nation's leap-frogged past all others (up until 35 years ago)in these areas. That evolution comes at a cost that every citizen is expected to contribute to. Since our tax burden is lower than almost all other 1st tier, developed nations, it would seem we're getting a bargain.

GS:

Before I respond I still need to respond to your previous post to me. By no means did I think you were demeaning my beliefs. Your a good man and in case you didn't notice I tend to want to debate you most because you use your own name and your points are well-reasoned. I also like debating you because you don't take cheap shots or manipulate what I said, but rather take my issues head one and either refute or support the issue in discussion.

I always think highly of people who talk straight, (even though sometimes I might not myself :)). ML Peterson is a straight talker too.

Machiavelli always wants to come up with issues or comments to try and pit me against republicans. obviously, he would be a great tactician on a campaign.

What I've learned in my small volunteerism in politics is there are a lot of really, really good people in politics of all shades and stripes on the political spectrum. there are republicans who don't agree with republicans just as democrats who don't agree with democrats and God Bless the fact. I fear the homogenizers the most that want to turn politics into my side versus your side.

In terms of tax burden, I feel it's too high still under this republican administration and some things just undermine basic norms in society. Maybe, I'm wrong, but it doesn't take cost of living for individuals into effect when I'm being taxed at all.

An example I seem to go back to is the last democratic proposal I know of. John Kerry said anyone making over 200K would face a major tax increase.

Well, he must have not understood that most sole-proprietors (small businesses) who can't afford to incorporate as an S corp or a C corp usually bring in over 200K in income on their personal tax return. This would really be an unfair burden on these types of small businesses. A lot of times sole-proprietors have over 200K in income, but leave it in the business to grow it. It doesn't just go into their wallet. Actually, building strong equity in the company with the money they are being hit additionally on by the Kerry proposal undermines their ability to get loans and good rates.

What this sort of small business tax burden encourages is to take paper losses in small companies so you can take a net operating loss carry forward the next year. It undermines employment and statistics show when small businesses hire, they tend to pay better wages than their big business competitors.

Well, I hit Kerry's proposal a little, now I'll focus on a Republican proposal.

One federal proposal I'd like to see changed or modified is Depreciation (MACRS) write-downs on business equipment and machinery purchases. What is happening is you have a bunch of businesses buying equipment because they need to get the big write-offs. However, a small business person has to put forth cash and hope this piece of equipment generates cash, which usually it doesn't.

Well, Cash is king in any small business and unlike personal bankruptcy law, small businesses can be pushed into BK by crditors and suppliers if they don't pay.

So while they buy new things and generate sales for other suppliers, which is classified as GDP growth to get tax breaks, they also are depleting cash that could be used to hire more employees, grow their business, and grab more market share.

Essentially, the government with it's current depreciation model is undermining good business practices, which would lend itself to add employees with good paying jobs.

My point is really neither party is gettin it on this issue.

Thank you Brian for allowing me to blog and debate the issues of the day.

Happy New Year Everyone!!!!

Maybe if the admin's tax policies were written by people making under a million a year For people making under a million a year taxes would be lower. As far as I see it too much focus was given to the top 1% of people on Earth.

A conservative Republican in California is more liberal than a Democrat in Utah. This centrist fad is a fighting for the center between a moderate Republican party and a left wing Democrat party.

Maybe the motto should be:

Just because we want to support Richman and his efforts to privatize benefits while at the same time help W. get relected because he hasn't F'ed up everything yet, doesn't mean we are as far right as Tony Strickland!

The above comment by "CPAC" is in no way affiliated with CAPC (California Association of Political Centrists).

We were founded in May 1998. One of our organization's most important events [incidents?] occured in Ventura County. Founder DonLake@sbcglobal.net was formally admitted to Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista on 17 February 2000.

His [First Amendment, free, legal, lawful] association with Citizens For A Better Veterans Home came into view and he was [and is] illegally blocked from residency at this state run care campus. His original state level [legally mandated] review was July 2000.

Only through the intervention of both the Assembly and state Senate, did CALVETS and CDVA obey the law of the land and hold the unlawfully delayed hearing as a side show to its Ventura County . Even then, the July 2002 kangaroo court was a truncated Communist Show Trial where the action was immorally cut short and the decision never in doubt.

This fascist event was so illegal that the State Board of Auditors blasted CDVA and CALVETS and Gray Davis on board and department procedures.[report 2002 - 112]. Be it Wilson, Davis, or the current Govenator, CALVETS and CDVA is easily the worst run agency in the entire state government and responsible for scores of suspect veteran deaths.

Now even more hypocricy springs from Ventura County. A group claiming centrist, moderate, middle of the road ideology makes it nearly imposible to contact or communicate with it. Unlike Citizens For A Better Veterans Home, CAPC talks politics but does not broadcast its phone, email, blog or usps address.

Hello? Hello? After months of trying to connect with CAPC, we don't know if any one is home, ---much less if the 'lights are on'!

John Dennis Coffey
Paul Wayne Snyder
Donald Raymond Lake
Mary Tish Firmiss
Post Office Box 2258
Barstow California
92312-2258
619.420.0209
760.253.2371
619.426.5698
619.852.1481