In 1999 Jackie Spier voted for SB400, which was the law that increased state public safety pension by 50%. This was one of the most fiscally irresponsible pieces of legislation ever written, and will result in an upcoming wave of municipal bankruptcies due to massive increases in pension costs that are swallowing state and local budgets. Spier also voted for the infamous 2002 CCPOA contract that cost taxpayers over $2 billion and practically handed control of the state prison system to the prison guard's union. Anybody who voted for this legislation should be voted out of office, including Ms. Spier. You can't change anything by continually electing politicians that are part of the problem.

Nearly everyone (D & R) did vote for that, Bubba, and the analysis at the time was not at all the Armageddon you painted. Tony Strickland failed to vote on it, BTW. Speier took on CCPOA in 2004 when she created the Inspector General to investigate the Department of Corrections and other state agencies. CCPOA was vigorously opposed. CCPOA is no fan of Jackie's. In 2005, she went after the sub prime lenders, but her legislation failed as she was ahead of the curve.

NWPC supported Jackied Speier in her 2006 run for Lt.Gov. and we were thrilled to have her attend one of our main functions. She is a wonderful intelligent, friendly and certainly a perfect match for an ailing California. I would support her wholeheartedly as I'm sure our NWPC women would. We all enjoyed meeting her and speaking with her. But mostly we have remembered her courage and committment to government and her out front attitude towards helping this state. She would make a great governor and I can only hope that she will run and WIN!

Marie, why should we keep electing those in Sacramento who give away billions of dollars to special interest groups? Speier voted for a massive pension giveaway that is not only causing our state budget to implode, but is also well on its way to wiping local budgets too. Years later she voted for a massive contract for the prison guards union that is one of the worst deals for taxpayers that has ever been drafted. Does she even read this stuff before she votes on it? She has a demonstrated history of bad judgement. Now, after the fact, she wants to battle the CCPOA, yet she was one of the politicians who caved in to their outrageous pay and pension demands, and pretty much gave them complete control over our dysfunctional prison system as well. She is part of the problem, not the solution. I don't see you defending banking executives who were responsible for the mortgage meltdown by stating, "the analysis at the time was not at all the Armageddon you painted". You are trying to let her off the hook for being complicit in some of the most incompetent fiscal decisions that have been made in this state over the past decade. You don't get change in Sacramento by re-electing people who make stupid decisions. You also seem to be displaying a double-standard by once again giving a free pass to liberal politicians that support your political views. You are quick to attack conservative politicians and corporate executives, but Speier can give away billions of dollars to politically connected public employee unions, including the prison guards union, and you choose to look the other way. Nice.

Jackie Speier is part of the problem, not the solution. Her first bill in Congress was an failed attempt at national legislation instituting negative reinforcement towards States. She proposed removing States' funding based on non-compliance with her highway speed limit reduction plan. Speier's bill was similar to the 1974 law, which threatened to withhold federal highway funds from states that refused to embrace the 55 mph speed limit. If a state refuses to comply under her bill, it would risk having its highway construction funds shifted to transportation safety and education projects. "It's a softer penalty," she said. Is the freedom to choose to drive slower, and positive reinforcement to encourage it, not enough? Gotta love the Left, they just don't get it.
Austin Belmont, CA

Bubba, I didn't write a blog about banking executives. Nor did I write a blog about George Runner's Jessica's Law, which costs the taxpayers hundreds of millions annually and is a failure which has gotten him into some hot water, too. I looked through the legislation and there were very few votes against it, no arguments in opposition and clearly identified funding streams. So obviously there was huge support for SB400 at the time, including among many Republicans.

Hindsight is always 20/20. But given your OCD on this particular issue, I would think you would give some credit to a Dem who wants to take on the folks you are unhappy with. As to Speier's House bill, it is my understanding she wanted to lower the speed limit to 60 as a way of saving energy.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/a/2008/07/11/MNNP11N0G7.DTL

Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't see you and other dems using that to defend executives from AIG, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, General Motors and others. Gosh, these guys could use the same excuse. But that doesn't take away their responsibility to exercise sound fiscal judgment. In fact, most democrats, and republicans for that matter, argue that these executives should all be fired for incompentence. I'm sure that there were lots of decisions by the vast majority of GM executives to focus on the manufacturing of massive SUV. Virtually all the people running the mortgage industry thought that giving out risky loans was somehow a good idea. But now we have seen the results of that type of incompetence and groupthink mentality. So when you say that Jackie Speier was simply going along with the vast majority of her peers in making decisions that, in retrospect, were incredibly stupid, is that suppose to inspire confidence in electing her as governor? Shouldn't we be electing people who have the vision, insight, and leadership to make good decisions and who actually think for themselves? I'm not interested in electing a governor who just goes along with the crowd to support politically popular decisions that have short-term political gain, but long-term fiscal consequences. We already have enough of that in Sacramento. Marie, you are one of the people who has repeatedly attacked Tony Strickland for portraying himself as a "green" technology executive. Your argument has been that he has no history of supporting environmental causes, therefore he is simply masquerading as someone who cares about the environment. Why then do you now hold Jackie Speier up as someone who will fight against the CCPOA when she, in fact, voted in favor of their bloated contracts. Only now, after the fact, is she claiming that she will fight special interests. Her voting record says otherwise. Jackie Speier and other politicians like her are responsible for California's fiscal nightmare. She has been in Sacramento for decades and is part of the existing status quo. I don't see what we gain by electing somebody like her as governor. She has no record of fiscal responsibility, and, based on her votes for legislation like SB400 and the 2004 CCPOA contract, no record of leadership and independent thinking. Would you elect Angelo Mozilo (former CEO of Countrywide) as governor? Would you defend him by saying that hindsight is 20/20? Of course not.

Basically, Bubba, you won't be happy until Tom McClintock is elected governor. Admit it. You've professed your admiration for him in the past. He's an extremist and the one responsible for extracting Grover Norquist's no new taxes pledge from all but one of the legislature's Republicans. This is the chief culprit behind the legislature's current dysfunction. Legislators who are unable to bend and compromise are not doing their job. An all-cuts budget would not have been mathematically possible back in February. You even said so.

The voters also pass stupid special interest-sponsored ballot measures which have no identified funding source.

But you are very wrong about Jackie not fighting the powerful prison guards. She initiated a series of investigations, through the Senate Select Committee on Government Oversight, on conditions in the prisons and how the CDC spends its money. In 2005, Speier introduced seven bills related to prison reform. She worked to get the contract with the CCPOA renegotiated and tried to block their pay raise. So they don't like her very much. I was reading one of their newsletters and they said they were being "speiered." :-)

We tried a governor with few powerful Sacramento ties who said he was going to blow up the boxes. And we all know how that worked out. I don't mind Tom Campbell. But I think he's too moderate for the current crop of Republicans so he'll never get the nomination.

Marie, once again you try to change the topic in order to avoid giving honest answers to tough questions. That seems to be your MO. Jackie Speier gave away billions of dollars to special interest groups. She voted for SB400, one of the most fiscally irresponsible pieces of legislation ever written, and something that now threatens to bankrupt both the state and local governments. She voted for bloated CCPOA contracts that awarded massive pay and benefit increases, and handed over control of our prison system to a public employee union. It is no wonder that we now spend more money than any other state on a prison system that is close to being put under federal receivorship. Sorry, but voting for a bad CCPOA contract and then begging them to renegotiate after the fact is not leadership, it's stupidity. She has not distinguished herself in any way from every other tax and spend liberal in Sacramento. Politicians like Speier are not the solution, they are the problem. She had decades to distinguish herself from her colleagues, but now with 20/20 hindsight we can all see that she voted for all the same big union giveaways and massive spending increases that put our state into its current fiscal crisis. You don't get change in Sacramento by continually re-electing fiscally incompetent political carpetbaggers like Jackie Speier.

Well this will put to rest any rumors that I've banned you from my blog! :-) What tough questions haven't I answered? This is your favorite rant. We've gone over it under numerous entries over many, many months. Some days I think I'm debating Keith Richman.

I admire the woman's guts. That won't change. You don't like two of her votes. That won't change. And everything in between is just noise.

I see you've called Gavin Newsom a "flawed" candidate (but likeable). He would be a GOVERNOR......Human...flawed- Not a Saint nor Jesus! Gavin is the kind of person we need in Sacramento because he represents people (like us!) in such a wonderful and caring way. We NEED a man that relates to real people in real situations! Newsom for Governor!

Marie, if you go back and read my posts I asked you a number of questions that you ignored. Such as, why should we keep electing those in Sacramento who give away billions of dollars to special interest groups? It is a fact that Speier voted for bloated CCPOA contracts and massive pension giveaways that is now costing our state billions of dollars every year. Instead, you try to make excuses for her by saying that "hindsight is 20/20". But when I point out that you don't give republicans and corporate executives the same 20/20 free pass you change the topic. We shouldn't be voting for politicians who have a history of bad judgement. You have also been excusing away Speier's votes on fiscally irresponsible legislation by pointing out that these laws were supported by the vast majority of politicians in Sacramento. So I asked you why we should elect someone as governor who simply went along with the vast majority of her peers in making decisions that, in retrospect, were incredibly stupid? Going along with the crowd is not courageous and is certainly not leadership, which are qualities we desperately need in our next governor. I asked you, shouldn't we be electing people who have the vision, insight, and leadership to make good decisions and who actually think for themselves? I asked whether her history of simply going along with the vast majority of her peers was suppose to inspire confidence in electing her as governor? I also asked whether you would elect somebody like Angelo Mozilo as governor, and whether you would you defend his decisions in the same way by saying that hindsight is 20/20? If you are going to apply 20/20 hindsight as the standard for measuring the performance of elected officials, then shouldn't you at least give the same deference to politicians on both sides of the aisle, or to corporate executives? Applying the same standard to, say, George W Bush, then you could excuse away all of his decisions. After all, it's easy to criticize the war in Iraq with 20/20 hindsight. But it is clear that you apply different standards, depending on party affiliation. Your excuses for Speier come up short. She clearly lacks the judgement and leadership necessary to become governor. Her voting history that gave away billions of dollars to politically connected special interest groups speaks for itself.

You're a one-issue guy/gal, Bubba. I'm not. I'm not going to discard a great candidate because of one vote on a bill you don't like. A bill that at the time had nearly unanimous support, no opposition arguments and clearly identified funding streams. Nope. Not going to do it. Especially not in light of her fearless work which you give her absolutely no credit for. You didn't answer my question about Tom McClintock, either.

First you tried to make excuses for Speier's voting record using the "20/20 hindsight" standard. But then, using your own reasoning, you would then have to give a free pass to GWB for this economic policies and the war in Iraq. So, once again, you are demonstrating an obvious double-standard. Now you are arguing that she simply went along with something that had "nearly unanimous support" and "no opposition arguments". Seems to me that the war in Iraq was passed with a strong majority and very little opposition. Does that mean that you would give a free pass to any politician who voted for the war because there was near universal support? If the majority of politicians supported slavery and there was no opposition, would it be OK? Marie, you are talking nonsense. My issue has always been about fiscal responsibility. You may be willing to give a free pass to people who squander billions of dollars of taxpayer money on special interest giveaways, but politicians like Speier are the reason California is in a fiscal crisis. You are making excuses for her by arguing that she was simply going along with the crowd. All that demonstrates is a lack of courage, a lack of leadership, and a lack of judgment. You can try to spin it, but her votes speak for itself.

Not accurate. There was plenty of opposition to the Iraq war and the way it was being planned, including within the military and the president's own cabinet. There were many public demonstrations.

However, after doing research, I was unable to find any organized opposition to the pension bill at the time it was passed. Why is that? If you can find something, please leave a link here.

The reason why there is typically no organized opposition to the pension bills like SB400 is because powerful public employee labor unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year lobbying elected officials and funding their campaigns. Who is representing the taxpayer? There was no organized opposition to your local city council giving firefighters a 50% increase in their pensions, even though it was clearly a stupid decision. And people on both sides of the negotiating table typically benefit from increased pension benefits, so again, taxpayers are not represented. Pension boards are appointed by elected officials, and most members of pension boards are current or former union members who also benefit from enhanced benefits. If your local police or teachers union is negotiating for higher pension benefits, who is there to oppose that benefit? At the table will be union representatives, administrators and managers, all of whom will benefit from enhanced benefits. And the contracts will be ratified by school board members and elected officials, who often take campaign contributions from the same public employee unions asking for the benefits. And anybody who actually does speak out in oppositions will be smeared and attacked, labelled as anti-education or anti-cop. It takes courage for any elected official to stand up to these groups. Unfortunately, few politicians have the courage or ethics to do the right thing, which is a big reason why this state is going broke. In that respect, Jackie Speier is no different than the vast majority of other politicians who take money from public employee unions and then reward them by voting for bloated contracts. The loser is the taxpayer. Which is why I see no reason to keep electing politicians like Speier, as she is part of the problem, not the solution. You keep making excuses for her by claiming that she was just going along with the crowd. But going along with the crown is not courageous, and is certainly not leadership.

The Republicans take loads of special-interest money, as I've documented quite well here. The prison guards did hit pieces on Hannah-Beth on Tony Strickland's behalf. I put up a blog on campaign finance reform and got few comments. We need public funding of campaigns. We can't afford not to do it. What do you think of the ballot measure up next June?

I've never made a distinction between republicans and democrats when I discuss the dangers of special interest influences. I hold politicians from both parties to the same standards, and would never vote for any politician that has a history of supporting fiscally irresponsible legislation in exchange for campaign contributions. You continually complain about the CCPOA, but they are just one of many public employee unions in this state who use their power and money to influence political campaigns and legislation. When various teachers unions were unhappy with Governor Arnold they ran a $100 million smear campaign against him and his initiatives. You repeatedly complain about the CCPOA, but seem to give a free pass to other public employee unions that engage in the same tactics. Interestingly enough, you also don't seem to mind the fact the Jackie Speier voted in favor of bloated CCPOA contracts during her entire political career in the state senate and state legislature. It's only when the beast turns against their master that you seem to care.

You didn't answer my question about campaign finance reform. What if special interests didn't sponsor fiscally irresponsible ballot initiatives? I think unions serve a purpose in protecting workers. The teachers unions are also sticking up for our kids. But I didn't like the tenor of the mailers aimed at Hannah-Beth from the CCPOA.

Marie: So much for Ron's charge that you banned Bubba Kidd from your blog-site.... Bubba and Marie: Wow! Given the fervor and frequency of your "tit-for-tat" exchanges lately, it's kinda like the cyber-equivalent of being in Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina with the "Blogging-Bullets" whizzing by..

Marie: Can't wait for the "Democratic friendly-fire cyber-exchanges" that will likely develop between you and Atkins as the Jordan-Williams Primary race heats-up..

Finally, Marie.. The last thing I want to see is part of my hard-earned taxes going to make either Parke Skelton, on the Ultra-Liberal Left, or Duane Dicharra, on the Uber-Right, get richer than they already are from the political consulting businesses... Hamilton, Jay and Madison got it just right with the Bill of Rights.. Political expression is a first amendment right and the less government regulates it, the better.. Full, immediate, and complete disclosure of both the sources and uses of 100% of all political contributions is what we need.

Then the people, can decide to elect either, "the Good, the Bad or the Ugly.." We don't need term limits, and we sure don't need unelected, six-figure bureaucrats in either Sacramento or Washington deciding on whose politics is correct, or how much public money their favored candidates should get to run winning campaigns...

As to political courage and wisdom, it never has, nor will it ever come from anything but personal character, tested time and time again when the choice is between the public good and personal gain... To that end, former California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh's less widely known quote about the essential quality of political leadership in Sacramento in spite of lobbyist charms, dollars, and influence and is dead-on..

Unfortunately, it would offend the delicate sensibilities of many a Dennert blogger, so I'll refrain from posting it here.. But I encourage any one of you to "Go For Broke," and check it out...

Ciao Commendatore!
NostraDemus

Yes, and so much for rumors that I banned you, too.

It's no secret that I am actively supporting Susan Jordan for the Assembly District 35 race. But David Atkins and I are good friends, so I don't think we will be riddling each other with cyber bullets.

Bubba's being polite. I enjoy the debate and as long as folks don't post things that violate my blog rules, anyone is free to post here.

This might be a good time to post rules again: I do not accept comments that are defamatory, obscene, sexually harassing, abusive, threatening, violent or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Posts may be edited.

Marie and I have our difference, but she does let me have my say. Any rumors that she has banned me from blogging are untrue. Just because we get into occasional arguments doesn't mean that I don't respect her or appreciate the work she does in the community and in managing this blog. But I don't want to get too mushy, so I'll just leave it at that.

Aw, Bubba, I didn't know you cared! :-)

And there she is with nazi pelosi

Andy, You diminish the extermination of millions when you throw a Nazi analogy around without meaning, context, or reasoning.

I will second what BK has to say regarding differences. Marie and I differ on many issues but she never bans me or threatens me when I express an opposing viewpoint.

Marie, Forgive me for disagreeing. Democrats have controlled California for a long time and it's been one long decline into fiscal irresponsibility and complete legislative incompetence. And under the tutelage of Jerry Brown one of the nation's best highway systems was left to fall into disgraceful disrepair. To me he's as flawed as Gavin Newsom.

For the first time in a long time we have a real possibility of electing a Republican who, unlike Arnold and his Republican predecessors, knows both economics and politics from the ground up. To put it euphemistically, unlike Arnold he knows his elbow from a hot rock (bet some of you thought it would be offensive!). It'll be a fight, but we're going to make that fight all the way. By the way, I agree about Arnold. He's been a loser from day one.

And to some of you: Marie is one who respects opposing viewpoints. She and I have had a lengthy discussion about taxes and though we disagree, she respects my point of view and I respect hers. What she does not respect -- and I don't either -- is those who post in violation of her rules of civility and common courtesy.

Marie: Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, "..it does appear that for the moment, the reports of my being banned from your blog have been wildly exaggerated.." On the other hand, I would suspect that among certain political circles, being banned from your blog might be viewed as a "Cyber Red-Badge of Courage." Kinda like being on the 21st Century cyber-equivalent of Nixon's enemies list.. Just kidding!!! As to your second point promising no Cyber-Donkey fur flying between you and Brother Atkins during the upcoming 35th AD Democratic Primary race, I say, ".What a pity.." As an informed, hard-working, Democratic voter in the 35th AD, the last thing I want to see is Democratic tea-party, full of the "Narcissism of Small Differences," between Ms. Jordan and Mr. Williams and their supporters.. After all, the State is broke, the State Legislature, currently controlled by Democrats, is dysfunctional, and many of our elected representatives in Sacramento, Democrats and Republicans alike, have lost the public's trust by both their individual personal behaviors and their collective political actions, or more often, inactions.. Hell, even at the height of Watergate, Richard Nixon's approval ratings were higher than the 8 to 14% approval ratings given to the California Legislature and our Girly-Man Governator by likely voters in our State.. Elections in a Democracy are nothing if not spirited, competitive struggles for votes. In this case the Democratic primary voters in the 35th A.D. And if the Democratic candidates don't "..train as they fight, and fight as they train," well then, as implausible as it may sound, the voters in the 35th AD just might express their frustration with Sacramento by electing Mr. Stoker to send them a message! As they say, "Politics makes strange bedfellows," and stranger things than that have happened in California politics.. For example, how about Arnold's high-plurality, near majority election as Governor as the result of the Gray Davis Recall Election of 2003, just six short years ago. In spite of Democratic voter registration outnumbering Republicans in California by 1+ million then, Gray Davis, the incumbent Democratic Governor was recalled by 55 to 45%. And Arnold was elected as his replacement by almost a majority of California voters (i.e. 48.6%). In fact, MORE votes were cast for Arnold than for the next three candidates (i.e. Bustamante, McClintock and Camejo) COMBINED! If my memory serves me correctly, men voted overwhelmingly in support of Arnold. However due to rapidly changing electoral demographics in this State, getting overwhelming support from men, in particular white men, just ain’t good enough for victory in a Statewide election anymore in California. As they say, “electoral demographics defines victorious destinies.” As such, the cold, hard truth is that Arnold was elected Governor due in great measure to the support he received from women voters (i.e. almost half of the women casting ballots for Governor in the 2003 Recall election voted for Arnold). And this was in spite of numerous published accounts of Arnold’s checkered history of less than gender-respectful behavior with the ladies. And, as the Local Chapter Chair of the NWPC, you very well know from your research into demographic voting patterns that women usually are a rock-solid vote for the Democratic Party’s nominee, often voting for that nominee, by 55% to 65% margins... So, to paraphrase the old Latin warning, "..vox populi caveat emptor.." Anything can, and most likely will, happen during the 2010 election season in California.. Ciao Commendatora NostraDemus

NostraDemus, I would argue that Arnold's election was strictly a media phenomenon. From the time his name was first thrown out as a possible candidate until Election Day he was the only one you heard about. None of the others could get in a word, not even edgewise. Small wonder that he was elected! He was a big name and he got broadcasters the high ratings that attract expensive advertising. McClintock was not approved of by many, Davis was in disgrace and so it was Arnold, Arnold, Arnold, ad nauseam. But let no one blame me. I knew better and voted for McClintock.

Say no to life time politicians. Stop this insanity. We need new leaders not recycled ones whom have put us in this huge debt. Never again vote to anyone that is connected to the current established legislature. Any new bad apple is better than the rotten barrel full we have now. Vote for these leaders and assume the fault for their actions.

ND, I'm happy to campaign for Susan Jordan for AD35, who I consider more a legislator, and not a politician. She is all about good public policy, and constituent services will be a huge priority for her.

She's a class act with statewide connections and a broad background in business in addition to her activism in environmental and health policy. She was also chair of the Santa Barbara Planning Commission for many years.

I tend to support business-minded Democrats most often. There are clear differences between these two candidates with Susan bringing a lifetime of real-world experience to her office.

But I am not going to exchange blows with my friends on blogs. Friendship means a lot to me. If David wants to come on here and campaign for his candidate, he's welcome to do so and we will engage in civil debate. That being said, anybody who's ever worked with Susan Jordan knows she's no shrinking violet. She's just a smidgeon taller than Barbara Boxer, yet a powerful advocate for what she believes in.

--
Terri, Sacramento is too full of wolves to send a complete neophyte in. You're in and out in 6 years in the Assembly and connections and knowledge do matter in order to move legislation along. The only long-timers are lobbyists and staffers, who move from elected to elected.

--
Roy, I said I didn't mind Tom Campbell. But I have my doubts whether the majority of Republicans will be smart enough to vote for him in the primary. He's too moderate for the ruling elite and can't raise money like eMeg and Poizner.

I also voted for Tom McClintock but now I realize it would have been a MAJOR mistake if he had won. I have been pleased with Arnold and felt he has done as good a job as possible given how impossible the legislators have been. I also support Susan Jordon for Assembly and will continue to support her against Mike Stocker - who is not qualified to serve. And I support Tom Campbell for governor - I hope he wins the primary but I doubt if any Rep with win the seat.

I'd like to see the final election be between her and Tom Campbell.

George F. Will's article from yesterdays paper summarizes his qualifications

Sunday, August, 30, 2009
SAN DIEGO -- The most ominous domestic event of the 1970s was the collapse of self-government in New York City, which before being put into receivership by the state was liberalism's laboratory.

Since then, California has been the slate on which liberalism boldly writes its recipe for decline -- high taxes, heavy regulation, subservience to public employees unions and environmentalism that is simultaneously apocalyptic and chiliastic. Because California's calamitous present -- creative accounting as a rickety bridge to the next budget crisis, coming soon -- might prefigure the nation's future, next year's gubernatorial election is portentous. An especially intriguing candidate in a colorful field is Tom Campbell. Colorful he is not. "Talk softly and carry a small calculator" could be his motto. What glitter, however, are his résumé and agenda. He has a Harvard law degree and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago, where his faculty adviser was Milton Friedman. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Working in the Reagan administration in 1983, in the wake of a severe recession, he assumed Reagan would lose in 1984 ("proof of my political acumen," he says; Reagan carried 49 states) and accepted a professorship at Stanford's law school. He represented Silicon Valley in Congress for five terms.

He unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for the Senate in 1992. He won the nomination in 2000 but lost the election. His third statewide run might work because, after Arnold Schwarzenegger's childlike faith in personality as the conqueror of problems, blandness may be charismatic. There is no constitutional mechanism to do for California what the state of New York did for New York City in 1975 -- transfer to an improvised authority responsibility for problems the political process cannot solve. But having been California's financial director in 2004-05, Campbell believes politics can restore something like the "Gann limit," a constitutional provision that, from 1979 to 1989 (California's malleable constitution only intermittently constitutes), limited annual spending by a formula based on inflation and population growth. He favors resetting the budget cycle so that the state would accumulate one year's revenue to be spent the following year, when precise knowledge would replace wishful thinking about available revenue. He would aggressively use the line-item veto by which governors can reduce as well as eliminate particular spending items. He thinks Berkeley and UCLA are providing an education comparable to Stanford's and should be priced accordingly, with higher tuition and compensating scholarships for the needy. He favors a constitutional convention to reform the ballot initiative process by forcing proponents of particular propositions to stipulate the taxes they would raise or programs they would cut to pay for their measures. But only if a convention can be limited to specific changes stipulated in advance. He knows that the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which was called to merely revise the Articles of Confederation, scrapped them and started fresh. Campbell's two rivals for the Republican nomination -- former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman and another tech entrepreneur, Steve Poizner, currently California's insurance commissioner -- are rich.

Campbell is a professor. Whoever wins the nomination, he says, will quickly become flush with funds. Yes, but you cannot steal first base in politics either. How can he be nominated? Like this, he says: Gray Davis, a professional politician of modest means, won the Democratic nomination in 1998 when two rich opponents nullified each other with media bombardments. Republicans are a shriveling tribe: Their registration is at a record low, 31.1 percent, and they do not have a majority of registered voters in any of California's 53 congressional districts. Democrats have a registration majority in 20 districts, and a statewide registration advantage of more than 2 million and growing. But the fastest-growing cohort of voters are independents who can vote in either party's primary. Campbell believes he is energizing them inexpensively by buying lists of likely voters (those who have voted in four of the past five elections), inviting 150,000 to call in to an enormous conference call, and discussing issues for 90 minutes with the 20,000 who do. If nominated, Campbell will face either the once-exotic but still canny Jerry Brown, who will be 72 and perhaps familiar to a fault, or Gavin Newsom, 41, San Francisco's dashing and evidently delusional mayor, whose campaign suggests that the bankrupt state's biggest problem is its denial of same-sex marriage. If Campbell is nominated, he can win, but if Californians were sufficiently rational to nominate him, their state would not be shambolic.

Hi Mike! What's a classy guy like you doing slumming on my blog? :-) Thanks for posting. You're the best.

The latest polls have Brown beating Newson and eMeg beating Campbell. I think it's all name recognition at this point, though. I'd take Campbell over Schwarzenegger any day.

RE: Dragon Fly..."You diminish the extermination of millions when you throw a Nazi analogy around without meaning, context, or reasoning." Nancy Pelosi is a nazi....she is out their using the power of the federal government to intimidate free speech...calling people who are against the undocumented president's idiot health bill nazis And there is nancy speier all smiles there with that policitcal abomination, nancy peolosi