On KNBC’s The Filter Wednesday night, I talked with Fred Roggin about why California had run counter to what appeared to be the national trend and gone so resolutely blue in Tuesday’s election. (Okay, Fred talked, I rambled a bit, let’s be honest.)

So why did California go so blue?

Well, duh. First of all we’re a resolutely blue state. We elect Republican governors and have plenty of both Democrats and Republicans making up our diverse state.

But when it comes to things like presidential elections, and midterms, we’re blue. We went 61 to 37 for Obama in 2008, 66 to 33 against Bush (and for the not-terribly-popular Kerry) in 2004.

Yes, like the rest of the country, we’re suffering. We have over 12 percent unemployment. The state’s broke. Our schools are a mess, and we have a list of complex social problems that few regions can match. But we don’t think Barack Obama caused our problems, even if we are somewhat less than thrilled with how he’s handled everything on his preposterous full plate. We don’t think he’s a socialist. And we don’t think our ongoing economic woes are his fault. (And we truly shudder to think what might have happened had McCain/Palin been elected.)

And , now two years later, we have seen zero to suggest that the Republicans —tea partiers or otherwise—have any kind of plan to fix it.

Yes, we’re pissed off at the Democrats in Congress, but we’re way angrier at the Just Say No obstructionist Republicans, and we aren’t insane enough to believe it was better under that Bush guy and his group. (In California, Obama has a 53 percent approval rating, Democrats have 50 percent, while the GOP has 34 percent, the Tea Party movement rates slightly less than the Republicans.)

All that said, however, had Republicans chosen an appealing centrist not-terribly-partisan candidate she (or he) might very well have beaten Barbara Boxer, because she represents the kind of Beltway entrenchment that is getting on everyone’s last nerve.

Instead, however, the Republicans chose a far right leaning, rich woman who demonizes immigrants, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, doesn’t think gays should have equal rights, and is a tad too gun happy for our taste—AND, most significantly, is a job-exporting former CEO who represents, in most people’s minds, the only group that Americans dislike more than they dislike Congress right now—namely the combo burger of rich-Wall-Street-big-business.

When Fiorina said she felt our pain and that we should throw the rascals out and put her in, we kinda suspected that she might be one those frying-pan-into-the-fire variety rascals we most wanted most to avoid.

Ditto Meg Whitman.

Another thing: we haven’t bought the myth that health care reform is an evil socialist gargoyle that will eat our children and grandchildren. In fact, the majority of us are happy about it, such as it is, and 37 percent of us want it expanded. (The majority of the rest of the country wanted it back in 2007, before they were sold the gargoyle narrative. Not that the democrats and the president have done a whole lot to advance a more fact-based narrative, but that’s another discussion.)

Interestingly, in California, Democrats came out to vote, even though the exceedingly annoying pundits said we wouldn’t. The so-called enthusiasm gap didn’t happen here. Dems showed up at the polls in large numbers—mainly to vote in the state races, correctly realizing that the elected official that could most affect our daily lives was, not our US Senator, but the governor of our fair state.

With that in mind, we figured the gubernatorial candidate with the best shot at turning things around was that 72-year-old Jerry guy, who talked sense, not the obviously lying, rich, Wall Street-friendly mean girl, eMeg and her $160 million. Thus the senior citizen dude who looks a whole lot like the state bird, but who was once a visionary for California, and just might be again—this time with his feet more firmly anchored in practicality— won with 53.6 percent to Whitman’s 41.

Here’s the bottom line. People all over the country are really hurting and they/we want the hurting to stop. What prescription we were willing to buy as a remedy, determined our vote.

The swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado, who were less sure about Obama from the get go were more willing to buy the Tea Party line that he was at fault.

Californians were not. In the end, we decided to vote for the notion that we could band together and fix our own state (and maybe lead the way toward a greener future for the rest of the nation while doing it). We went for the option of hard work, creativity and no easy fixes.

And I’m proud of us for doing so. I think in our own uniquely California-ish way, we behaved like grown-ups.

---

WHY DID MEG LOSE?

Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg writes in the LA Times that it was she came across as a patronizing, money flaunting, reckless spender.

---

THE ONCE AND FUTURE JERRY – MAKING HISTORY THEN AND NOW

Thursday’s LA Times Op Ed about who Jerry was as a governor 30 years ago, and who he might be for us now, is precisely the essay the LA Times should have written when they endorsed Brown over Whitman a month ago, instead of the preposterously tepid “Well (groan) if we HAVE to” endorsement they penned at the time..

Okay, better late than never. It’s a lovely essay—and pretty much dead on. Read it here.

From the Guardian: Jerry Brown triumphs over Meg Whitman’s millions

Governor Moonbeam is back. In one of the most remarkable stories of political resurrection in recent American history, Jerry Brown has won back the governorship of California, regaining a post he first won in the 1970s.

Brown, who earned his nickname during his first turn as governor after advocating hi-tech ideas that are now commonplace, defeated the high-spending Republican candidate Meg Whitman.

From the AP: Brown has deep ties to the California he will lead.

Jerry Brown was just 5 years old when he got his first taste of California politics, watching his father sworn in as the district attorney for San Francisco.

The father would go on to become the state’s attorney general and a popular two-term governor, while the son would follow his path — even as he took multiple side trips along the way from a Jesuit seminary to a Buddhist monastery in Japan.

At 72, Brown is completing a political journey unparalleled in California politics, after voters on Tuesday swept him back into the office over Republican challenger Meg Whitman. He was California’s 34th governor from 1975-83 and its 39th today.

From TPM: The Moonbeam Shines Once More

….During Brown’s previous tenure as governor, he gained a somewhat false reputation as a left-wing Democrat, owing to his counter-cultural sensibilities. In fact, he was in many ways a fiscal conservative, and had tense relations with public employee unions….

But he was not done yet. He ran again for President in 1992, winning several Democratic primaries as an alternative candidate to Bill Clinton. In 1999 he was elected Mayor of Oakland, was re-elected in 2003, and in 2006 was elected state Attorney General. Now he becomes governor of California again, 28 years after he originally left the office.

When he first took office in January of 1975, Jerry was California’s youngest governor since the 1850s; in January, EGB Jr. will be the oldest Californian to be sworn in to that same job.

AND SNIPS FROM JERRY’S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH:

“Will this help the next generation, that’s gonna be my watchword…”

“…This time we’re going to have a first lady, that’s going to be the real difference.”

“I take as my challenge of forging a common purpose, based not just on compromise, but of what California can be….”

“While I’m really into this politics thing, I still carry with me that missionary zeal to transform the world. I’m hoping and praying that this breakdown that we’ve been witnessing…paves the way for a breakthrough..”

---

WHITMAN’S CONCESSION: “Tomorrow we are all Californians.”

Gracious.

---

AND IN ANOTHER LOW MOMENT FOR CABLE NEWS…

I noticed that Brown’s I-think-I-may-have-actually-won-this-thing speech sent the room full of on-air CNN commenters into a gleeful bout of smirking and eye-rolling, Anderson Cooper included.

So, CNN dudes, let me get this straight: After a night like this one, it’s Jerry Brown talking with rather sweet and unfiltered candidness about his hopes for California, and his affection for his wife, that sends y’all into paroxysms of cynicism? Really?

Amazing. (And not in a good way.)

---

HERE’S WHAT JOSH MARSHALL said of the same speech:

Jerry Brown was sort of my formative political experience or perhaps my first. He was in office when I was in elementary school in California. He just gave his acceptance speech. I didn’t see it but I heard it. It was classic Jerry Brown. Seemed like something I could have heard him say 30+ years ago. Not the kind of speech you’d ever expect to hear from almost any politician in the country. He was a bit punchy, extemporaneous. Ranging in various ways from one topic to another. Here’s the one quote I wrote down: I still have that “missionary zeal to transform the world.” Who else would say that? I don’t think I heard any of his speeches during the campaign. But I get the sense he let a bit of Gov. Moonbeam out post-victory. In his post-gubernatorial career he’s frequently driven me nuts. But I kind of love the guy.

Well, yeah.

---

AND ELSEWHERE…

Not much to add that you’re not seeing endlessly on the cable networks except to say:

THANK YOU, NEVADA, for recovering your sanity.

KENTUCKY, thanks for nothing.

FIRST THE PRINTABLE SHORT FORM

---

STATE OFFICES

GOVERNOR: Jerry Brown (Duh.)
LT. GOVERNOR: Gavin Newsom
SECRETARY OF STATE: Debra Bowen
CONTROLLER: John Chiang
TREASURER: Bill Lockyer
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Kamala Harris, but, um, It’s complicated. (See below)
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Dave Jones

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: . Larry Aceves (with lots of irritation that it’s not reformer, Gloria Romero, but we live with what we’ve got.)

U.S. SENATOR: Barbara Boxer

---

THE BALLOT INITIATIVES

PROP 19: YES
PROP 20: NO (or YES: See Long Form below.)
PROP 21: YES
PROP 22: NO
PROP 23: NO
PROP 24: YES
PROP 25: YES
PROP 26: NO
PROP 27: NO

---

---

THE LONG FORM

THE PROPOSITIONS

---

PROP 19: YES

Look, by this time you’ve likely made up your mind on whether we ought to legalize, regulate and tax pot—or not. I think we should. Couldn’t be clearer on the matter. It’s time. Way past time, actually.

If you believe the reefer madness nonsense that is being lobbed your way by those against 19, that is assuredly your right. We can respectfully disagree.

In 2008, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests (the majority of them young men of color, BTW). That is completely nuts as a use of our law enforcement resources, just for starters.

(And the idea that the Mexican drug cartels favor Prop. 19 is laughable—as Héctor Camín and Jorge Castañeda explain succinctly in this WaPo op ed.)

However, one remaining sticking point for some people is the objection that the LA Times raised regarding the way that the proposition is written. It allows cities and counties to pass their own regulatory structures on top of the state law, should they so desire, which the Times says will lead to legal chaos. But that’s also the case with medical marijuana and somehow the empire hasn’t crumbled.
But don’t believe me. Believe UCI law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky who is, among other things, an expert on the way cities and municipalities function. Chemerinsky thinks Prop. 19 will do just fine. As does attorney and Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, of Sentencing, Law & Policy, who is smarter on the ins and outs of sentencing policy and the like than just about anyone in the country. Berman’s a big Prop 19 proponent.

For me, their analysis of the legal impact of the bill’s language easily trumps that of the LA Times editorial board (or that of the San Francisco Chron, for that matter).

They are merely two of the long list of high profile lawyers and law school profs who urge passage of the measure.

(And, for the record, no, I don’t smoke, or otherwise partake of the stuff. A few decades ago, yes. Now, no. It’s not my thing.)

---

PROP 20: NO (or YES)

Prop 20 is something of a wobbler. I’m voting NO, but don’t think a YES vote would be the worst thing in the world.

Briefly, it would require Congressional districts to be drawn by a citizens’ committee, instead of the State Legislature. We already have such a group set up to handle redistricting for the State Legislature, but it hasn’t met yet. Why don’t we see how they do first, before we start handing the keys to all the rooms in the house to this same committee.

Basically, the idea of removing the power to gerrymander districts from the politicians who stand to benefit is a good idea. But, my vote is to take it a step at a time.

FYI: Nearly all the state’s newspapers are in favor of Prop 20, all the state’s progressive groups are against it. Like I said, a wobbler. Make your own best call. There’s a case to be made for both sides.

---

PROP 21: YES

This initiative would establish a new source of funding for state parks, the budgets of which have been shredded by Governor Schwarzenegger. Everyone registering a vehicle in California (except for commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches) would pay an $18 annual surcharge to fund the parks. In exchange, those with California licenses would get free vehicle admission, parking and day use at the parks.

Those opposed say that we shouldn’t be raising and walling off funds for the parks when there are so many other worthy causes that are getting their budgets cut, and that somehow they will be hurt if this proposition passes. In the abstract, they have a point: as a general rule, cordoning off funds for special issues is a bad idea, especially when we have so many important social issues underfunded, or not funded at all. It complicates budget writing and all that jazz.

Okay fine. But every once in a while the general rule ain’t right. Since those charged with protecting the state parks abrogated what ought to be a sacred duty, the people need to step in.

Here’s the truth: if we fail to protect our state parks—which is what is presently beginning to happen–the consequences of our shortsightedness will last forever. Once that toothpaste is out of the tube, there’s no going back.

Like our National Park system, the California State Parks are treasures held in trust for every resident of the state, regardless of income or social status. The parks belong to all of us and they have to be protected. Period.

Prop 21 provides a surefire and painless way to do it.

A YES vote on Prop 21 is not anything resembling a close call.

---

PROP 22: NO

I agree with the LA Times, and Sheila Kuehl on this issue (among other endorsers who oppose 22).

The cities and counties don’t want certain designated funds raided by the state when the state has budget problems. We get that. And we don’t want it either, under most circumstances.

But here’s the deal: the funds are loans, not grabs, and must be repaid in full within three years. We are in an imperfect budget climate (to radically understate matters). Right now flexibility is of high value.

---

PROP 23: NO

Texas oil companies Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. have put a tankers full of money into this ballot measure—nearly 75 percent of its total budget— in an effort to hold off implementation of California’s landmark AB 32, California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. It would suspend the law requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas, and suspend a reduction plan that includes increased use of renewable energy.

If voters approve the proposition, the emissions law would not take effect until unemployment falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year. That has happened just three times during the past three decades, according to California Employment Development Department statistics.

Those same oil companies—which, according to the EPA, have lousy records as major polluters— want to portray AB 32, as a job killer. Don’t believe them. They do not have your and my best interests at heart, nor do they give a damn about the out-of-work residents of this state.

---

PROP 24: YES

As a condition of his signature on the budget last year, Governor Schwarzenegger insisted on a giveaway to certain kinds of corporations on their tax computations. The deal was as follows: Operating losses could be used to reduce taxes for previous years. Multi-state businesses can choose the tax formula that allows them to pay less tax and take the greatest losses and change it every year. This proposition repeals those corporate tax changes.

The LA Times and some of the state’s other papers say we should vote no, that it’s wrong for voters to tinker with budget deals and that repealing the tax deals could cost jobs.

I think they’re wrong.

Look, I too dithered for a while on Prop 24 until I examined the matter more closely.

Here’s how former US Secretary of labor Robert Reich puts it:

“[Prop 24] ends three extraordinarily bad corporate tax giveaways that will not save or create a single job. As a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, I can state emphatically that these narrow tax breaks for large corporations do not stimulate job creation, nor do they figure significantly in corporate decisions to locate in or relocate out of the state. Education, work force and other factors are much more important.”

Yeah. What he said.

---

PROP 25: YES

If passed, this would change the current two-thirds super-majority required to pass a state budget, to a simple majority vote of the legislature—so maybe our squabbling state lawmakers might manage to actually get a freaking budget passed once in a while.

By the way, 47 out of the 50 states allow passage of their budgets on a nice, sensible majority vote, instead of California’s stupid system that means that a quarrelsome minority can hold up a budget indefinitely—hence our current quagmire.

(Oh, and, just to be clear, this would not change the two-thirds super-majority required to increase taxes.)

---

PROP 26: NO

This snake-y little piece of dog poop is being funded by Philip Morris, ExxonMobil, the aforementioned Texas oil companies and other fun groups who do not have our best interests at heart. They want to require a two-thirds before polluters are charged environmental clean up fees, or tobacco, alcohol and other corporations are charged for the cost of treating the harm their products cause to public health—which means those fees and regulations will happen, like never. The corporations will go merrily along doing what they like without fear of reprisal. And the state will be $1 billion poorer, for it, to boot.

Prop 26 is, in many ways, even worse than Prop 23, but it has gotten a lot less publicity. Kick this junky measure to the curb, ASAP.

---

PROP 27: NO

Prop 27 would eliminate the 14 member redistricting commission that was just recently established by a previous ballot proposition (but has yet to actually meet) and give the power to establish Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts back to the state legislators, who—along with their Congressional colleagues—are the exact people who stand to benefit by having that power. (Think fox/hen house.)

The argument for abolishing the citizens commission is that they are not elected thus beholden to nobody. Yeah, yeah, okay. But the state legislators, who have a vested interest in how the districts are drawn, act like they’re beholden to no one and what we have is a state full of gerrymandered districts.

California voters wanted to try out this new method. Let’s do it. If we find we don’t like it, then we can get rid of it after we’ve test driven the thing, not before.

By the way, for a positively kick-ass rundown on the concept of Gerrymandering, along with a description of the genesis of this and Prop. 20, read this series of LA Weekly articles by Annenberg’s Hillel Aron.

---

---

THE CANDIDATES

---

GOVERNOR & US SENATOR

I assume that I don’t need to give another pitch for Brown, or against Whitman or Fiorina.

If you’re leaning in the direction of the two mean mendacious grrllls who hoped to buy themselves an election or two, I’m likely not going to talk you out of it.

So, EGB Jr. as the once and future governor! (Wooo-hoo!)

And Boxer back to the Senate.

---

LT. GOVERNOR

Gavin Newsom is a talented politician who likely has a long political future ahead of him. Lt. Gov is a good place for him to rev his engines and for us to see what he can do with what is, in essence, a do-nothing job.

Plus, if someone had to step up into the governorship, he’s the better choice.

---

CONTROLLER, SECRETARY OF STATE, TREASURER

Both John Chaing and Debra Bowen are smart public servants who showed some serious huevos at times when such things were called for. Chaing was positively heroic as he stood up to the governor when Schwarzenegger was wrongly using state employees’ salaries as a bargaining chip to try to whip the state legislature in line (which didn’t work anyway). Bowen, if you remember, refused to let questionable electronic voting machines be used in California, despite humongous levels of pressure to do so.

Bill Lockyer is another capable guy who has done a fine job (for the most part) as Treasurer during trying times. No reason to change horses right now. We’ve got enough on our collective plates. (Plus his Orange County challenger, Mimi Walters, seems never to have met a conflict of interest that she couldn’t wholeheartedly embrace.)

---

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Neither Larry Aceves nor Tom Torlakson are reformers. They are both biz as usual candidates, which is maddening.

Gloria Romero was the reformer and was widely expected to be in the runoff with Torlakson, the teachers’ unions’ guy. Then the LA Times had some kind of psychotic break right before the June primary and endorsed Larry Aceves, a very nice retired administrator whom nobody had heard of. Most voters didn’t know the difference, and so Aceves won, with union dude Torlakson, coming in second, with Romero the one true in the trenches, smart as a whip, game changer, aced out.

So here we are. Of the two, Aceves is the better choice. Torlakson is anti-charter, anti Race to the top, anti-reform (unless it only involves moving a few of the deck chairs around) anti-anything but what the teachers’ unions want. (And, gee, that’s worked out so well for us these past years.)

Whereas soft spoken Aceves seems to have a more creative outlook—and doesn’t seem altogether anti-reform. Neither is what we really need in California right now. But maybe Aceves will surprise us.

---

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

As for insurance commissioner, Dave Jones has been active in health care reform issues for some time now, where his opponent, Mike Villines, is a newcomer.

Outside of the governor, the insurance commissioner may have a bigger impact on the lives of Californians than any other elected official.

Villines, like Jones is a termed out state legislator. Villines appears, quite honestly, to be a very honorable guy as well. But he’s against Federal health reform, which is a problem.

Both men have show an ability to be independent, but Jones has the stronger track record for this particular job.

Which brings us to…..

---

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both Cooley and Harris have considerable strengths and, unlike a lot of my progressive friends, I actually think Steve Cooley would do fine as AG.

He stood up to the 3-strikes fanatics by using the law appropriately to put the really bad guys away, instead of merely striking people out for nonviolent third offenses—just because the law allowed it. He’s been good on other issues, that are less high profile. Plus, I’ve had a bunch of long conversations with Cooley about the challenges of prisoner reentry and other topics, and happen to simply like the guy.

But he has allowed his office to take stands on certain issues–like the Bruce Lisker case, for example—that are simply unsupportable. Plus, his willingness to uncritically co-sign on every idiotic thing that his new BFF Carmen Trutanich proposes, is a big, big problem.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is every bit has capable as Cooley is, and will chase after fraudsters and lawbreakers with equal vigor and expertise.

But Harris, unlike Cooley, is of a new breed that I think we need in our prison benighted state. One of her main campaign planks is to address the state’s ghastly recidivism rate.

While Cooley has most of the law enforcement endorsements, a long list of high profile cops who have worked with Harris—like SFPD Chief, and former LAPD Assistant Chief, George Gascon—think a lot of her and have endorsed her.

She’s smart, and she knows the state is desperate for some kind of leadership in the arena of criminal justice. Harris aims to provide it.

I say, give her the chance.

PS: One more thing: Cooley, unlike Jerry Brown, has vowed to defend Prop 8 in court. That not only guarantees an appeal, but by putting the considerable resources of the state of California behind the defense of Prop 8. Not okay.

---

On Sunday the LA Times portrayed Meg Whitman as positively loaded with law enforcement and firefighter endorsements, while at the same time suggesting that Jerry Brown had a few wimpy little public safety endorsements at most.

What’s up with that?

This skewed picture emerged in an “Election 2010″ article, written by reporter Catherine Saillant, about the potential influence of the police and firefighters unions and organizations on the California governor’s race. In the print edition of the paper, the article was titled, “These Allies Could Boost Whitman.”

Here are the first two ‘graphs of the piece:

Meg Whitman has repeatedly said she exempts police and firefighters from her plan to switch state workers from pensions to 401(k)-style retirements because they have dangerous jobs.** But analysts say the GOP gubernatorial nominee’s stance is also a shrewd political move.

Police and firefighter unions hold tremendous power in Sacramento and can use their cash and muscle to help a candidate get elected. They pay for hard-hitting TV ads that play up their role as the guardians of public safety. They turn out at campaign events to hector anyone who proposes to mess with their pay and benefits.

Saillant went on to quote experts who said that the cops, firefighters, and other law enforcement groups are perceived as our heroes. (and rightly so). Thus if Whitman has taken some heat due to her agreement to exempt state law enforcement personnel and firefighters from pension cuts, she was likely making a savvy move because, all the fire and cop unions who now endorse her will prove to be valuable assets by putting money and might behind her. And most importantly, they will lend to her their collective heroic and tough-on public-safety image. (Or words to that effect.)

Then the unions who endorse Whitman were listed: The LAPD union, (LAPPL) and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn., “a union of California Highway Patrol officers, firefighters and other public safety officials.”

Plus, there was a quote from Ron Cottingham, president of the Police Officers Research Assn. of California, “the largest group representing sworn officers,” which was positioned in such a way that most readers would assume that Cottingham’s organization also endorsed Whitman.

Finally, near the very end of the article, Saillant wrote that: “Brown has secured endorsements from other law enforcement groups and a police chiefs group.” That was it. End of story. And since none of those “groups” were deemed important enough to name, one was left to conclude that, whatever the organizations were, they were small potatoes compared to tough-on-crime Meg Whitman’s big, bad (but heroic) endorsements.

---

THERE IS ONLY ONE TEENSY-WEENSY PROBLEM with the article’s depiction of the candidates and their public safety supporters.

It is utterly misleading and…well…..kinda false.

Although both candidates have a reasonable list of public safety endorsements, including Whitman’s endorsement by the LAPPL (which carries a lot of weight in So Cal), when the lists are laid out side by side, one sees quickly that more of the state’s largest law enforcement and fire organizations support……..Jerry Brown.

Ron Cottington’s aforementioned 62,000 member organization, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, supports—not Whitman—but Brown.

The 30,000 member California Firefighters Organization supports Brown with a vengeance.

And the 800 lb. gorilla when it comes to exerting influence on California state politics, the CCPOA—the prison guards’ union—supports Jerry (not-your-father’s-moonbeam-anymore) Brown.

(I can’t actually find any firefighters’ group that endorses Whitman, but maybe I’m missing something.)

Moreover, Brown has performed this trick of getting endorsements without promising pension-reduction exemptions.

Below you will find listed the main dueling public safety endorsements according to the candidate’s own websites. (I left out individual endorsements, like LA County Sheriff Lee Baca and former LAPD Chief Bill Bratton, who also endorse Brown, and the Kern County and Sacramento County sheriffs who endorse Whitman.)

(By the way, I noticed that that Brown only lists his “key” endorsements whereas Whitman lists everyone she once passed on the street who said they were voting for her. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

---

WHITMAN ENDORSEMENTS

Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) - represents the more than 9,900 sworn officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) – represents 7,000 public safety professionals

California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA) – represents more than 3,000 law enforcement officers working in local, state and federal agencies.

California Narcotic Officers’ Association – provides training for 7,000 officer/members

---

BROWN ENDORSEMENTS

California Police Chiefs Association (Cal-Chiefs)
– represents nearly all the police leadership throughout the state.

California Professional Firefighters - represents more than 30,000 firefighters

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)- represents 62,000 officers and 890 local public safety associations.

California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations (CCLEA) – represents 80,000 officers statewide.

California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) – represents 30,000 correctional peace officers

---

I don’t mean to be critical of Ms. Salliant, whom I assume is a nice person and usually an excellent reporter. But when an election is as close as this one, it would be helpful if the information given to voters by the biggest newspaper in the state was…..you know….correct.

---

**NOTE: Whitman’s campaign got in touch to correctly remind me that she does not guarantee to exempt state public safety workers from all pension reform, but only from her platform’s 401(k) strategy.

---

THURSDAY UPDATE: Looks like not everyone at NOW considers the term “political whore,” off limits.

On Thursday, California NOW President Parry Bellasalma evidently told TPM, when asked, that “Meg Whitman could be described as ‘a political whore.’ Yes, that’s an accurate statement.”

Alrighty, then.

---

---

Okay, yes, I realize this whole Whoregate thing is the deadest of horses, but it is interesting, in part, because of what it reveals on all sides about political machinations.

And, also, it broaches the subject of the power contained in language.

Plus, it’s been good gossip. And human beings love to gossip. It’s part of how we tell our stories.

Okay, so the latest wrinkle in Whoregate occurred on Wednesday when the LA Times and other media outlets reported that although the California chapter of the National Organization for Women had endorsed Jerry Brown, the momma organization of NOW had not offered any such endorsement.

Until Wednesday—at which time NOW issued a statement giving Brown their support, but making clear that calling women whores—even in a political context—was not one teensy bit okay. It was hate speech, said NOW on its website. Furthermore, it was reported by the LA Times (and a string of news outlets repeated that story) that Now had “demanded” that Brown fire the staffer who said the W word.

So, what would Brown do? I wondered. Obviously, he’d shown a strong disinclination to fire whomever was the guilty party, claiming that the recording was too indistinct to know who said what. (Dude, you were there. You don’t need the freaking recording.)

And then there is the fact that, upon closer inspection, it has been widely observed that the voice in question belongs to a woman, not a man—and a woman who may very likely be Jerry Brown’s wife, Anne.

Obviously, it is not overly realistic to expect the candidate to fire his feminist, lawyer, former business executive wife, for using the W word.

Thus, what did NOW think Brown should do if it was indeed, his wife, who dropped the W bomb?

Weirdly, nobody seemed to have asked this question of NOW.

I decided to call the organization’s DC office to find out what they thought. I reached NOW’s press secretary, a smart and articulate woman named Mai Shiozaki.

Shiozaki had been fielding calls all day and it was a bit after 8 p.m. EST, when I found her, so I got right down to business.

If it was Jerry’s wife who called Whitman a political whore, did NOW honestly expect him to ankle the missus?

Shiozaki sighed. “We’re not asking for the aide to be fired,” she said. “That’s not at all what we meant. We think that if someone on either campaign says it in the future, they should be fired.” Mostly , she said, “we felt this should have been a teachable moment.”

“I’m all for teachable moments,” I said.

Shiozaki and I talked further about the spells that words can cast, for ill and for good, and what did or did not constitute hate speech. (I am more liberal on the topic than she is.) She admitted that she didn’t think the remark was gender specific in the situation with the Brown aide, or in the case of the remark made by Whitman campaign chair, former governor, Pete Wilson, when he called a large swath of the US Congress whores.

But it was still not okay, she said, not at all.

Before we rang off, Shiozaki said she’d send me a new and revised statement of NOW’s position on the matter.

The statement came a few minutes later. It read as follows:

NOW calls on Brown to take a pledge to, from now on, fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women. We also expect Whitman to take the same pledge. What happened last week was a teachable moment, and what we have all come to agree is that the “W” word is offensive, destructive and should be retired for good.

“Retired for good.” Okay, yes. Perfect, I wrote her back. The word should be mothballed. There are other ways to talk about hypocrisy that do not carry the same harmful freight.

Go, teachable moments!

---

AND IN OTHER NEWS…

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO APPEAL DON’T ASK DECISION—BUT QUICKLY

The Obama Administration is in a tricky situation. Obama wants to be rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But, now a federal judge in California has ordered an immediate cessation of the policy. Should the DOD comply (which will infuriate large portions of Congress) or should they defend the policy in a higher court?

The AP describes how the administration intends to divide that particular baby:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday of “enormous consequences” for men and women in uniform if a judge’s order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is allowed to stand.

The Obama administration may well ask for a stay of the ruling while it appeals. Justice Department officials worked behind the scenes on their response into Wednesday night with no word on when there would be an announcement. The uncertainty of the next step left gay-rights activists as well as the military in limbo over the status of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

A day after a federal judge in California ordered the Pentagon to cease enforcing the law, Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal should be a question for Congress – and only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, which is due Dec. 1.

Read the rest.

---

AND WLA JOINS ALL CHILEANS IN THEIR UTTER JOY AT THE RESCUE OF THE MINERS—MILAGROS X 33!

Well, it wasn’t dull.

Brokaw was great. Whoever made the decision to ask him to moderate this puppy, did us a great favor.

Meg was much better prepped than in the past.

She also seemed to get a lot more face time, mainly because she grabbed it, and Jerry allowed her to do so. Should he have jumped in more?

Among Whitman’s better moments was her answer to the teachers’ union question that was asked of Brown. He bobbled it. She hit that one out of the park and sounded forceful on education reform.

Jerry came back to some degree on the topic. But she was much stronger.

Meg’s most effective zinger (which had the unfortunate disadvantage of not being accurate), was when she said, “You have been part of the war on jobs … for 40 years.” The line drew a startled round of spontaneous applause.

Jerry scored points when he said that he would start the budget process, not in January when the governor usually proposes his budget for the following fiscal year, but in November, right after he’s elected. That he’d get all 120 legislators in a room and basically get down to it.

Brown: You’ve got to get the legislature on board or nothing happens. (An applause line.)

This was a hit at Whitman since it was precisely the thing that Arnold failed to do, despite good intentions. It is thus far not at all clear that Whitman has the government craft in her repertoire to succeed any better.

Jerry’s statement about leading by example, also got him applause. (The topic came up in relation to Whitman ridiculing him for saying he would cut the staff in the governor’s office. Jerry parried the blow and struck back.)

After Meg had her good education moment, Jerry was good on immigration. He was clear, emotional and believable.

He was also good when Meg slammed him for not defending Prop. 8. There was no shilly-shallying. It’s been ruled as being in violation of the 14th Amendment to the constitution, he said, and he won’t have his office fight for it. Period. “When something is so fundamentally wrong….I’m not going to back it.”

On whoregate—which Brokaw handled well—Brown was appropriate in bringing up Whitman campaign manager Pete Wilson’s own “whore” remark, but Jerry could have sounded a bit more sincere with his apology.

On the other hand, it was exceptionally grating to watch Whitman making Homer Simpson noises when Brown said that, No, in fact he didn’t think that having his campaign staffer calling Whitman a political whore was the same as using the “N” word.

(Dispute it if you want, Meg, but be a grown up. Not a smirking high school girl.) Even the audience went into a bout of high murmuring at her response to the issue.

Whitman continues to hit jobs harder than Brown does.

On the other hand, Jerry was good at urging the defeat of prop 23. In addition to his pitch for a green future, he said that Whitman’s proposal creates “regulatory uncertainty” for business.

Jerry handled the crime and criminal justice questions capably, batting away Whitman’s soft-on-crime accusations.

Plus, speaking personally, it was good to see Jerry momentarily showing his reformer side on the subject:

“We need criminal justice reform,” he said.We need reentry, and we also need to be tough on crime.”

There was much about pensions.…and one more round of barbs about who would be the best cutter of government waste.

So, how do you think each did?

And, in the end, who won?

The reporting on…um….Whoregate has been less that stellar, particularly I’m sorry to say, that of the LA Times, which was the media outlet that first received the recording.

This story is already past its prime, but it deserves some clean up.

So let’s review the basic facts:

1. On September 7, a 4:10 minute recording was made accidentally when Jerry Brown didn’t adequately hang up the phone after leaving a voicemail message for Scott Rate, a Los Angeles police union director and political endorsement committee chair for the LAPPL.

2. At the 1:53 minute mark on this recording, someone in Brown’s group said of Meg Whitman, “She’s a whore.”

3. The remark was made regarding what the Brown campaign regarded as Whitman’s willingness to sew up the police union’s endorsement by guaranteeing that she would exempt any state law enforcement and firefighters from the pension reform that both she and Brown have both described as crucial to rescuing California from insolvency. Since Brown declined to make such a guarantee, and Whitman had accused him repeatedly of being beholden to unions, Jerry and some of the rest of the Brown camp had much to say about the issue.

(It should be noted that it is the city, not state government, that negotiates the LAPD’s pension structure. The governor has ways of exerting influence, but has no direct power over the LAPD pensions.)

Nevertheless, the LAPPL’s Scott Rate told me that Whitman’s willingness to exclude cops and firefighters from her pension reform plans was was the largest single reason that the union endorsed Whitman over Brown. (He also cited some other reasons why they preferred Whitman, like the fact that Whitman is pro-death penalty while Brown is not, and that Whitman laid out many more specifics when they met with her than did Brown.)

---

OKAY, BACK TO WHORE-RELATED UTTERANCES.

4. The “whoregate” recording was handed off to the LA Times late last week, a full month after its creation.

Rate said that the reason for the 30-day plus lag time was that the issue had to go to the union’s “PAC attorney” for vetting to figure out if it was legal for the union to release the recording made without Brown’s knowledge. The PAC attorney decided that it was indeed legal.

(A “PAC attorney” is, Rate told me, as the name suggests, a lawyer who works for the political action committee of which the union is a part.)

Still Rate did not have a explanation for why it took a month for the PAC attorney to answer the legal question, and why the recording seemed to show up just as Whitman desperately needed a change of subject away from the elections previous “gate”— Nannygate.

5. I learned from another source that the timing of the recording’s release was, in fact, orchestrated by Don Novey, the ousted president of the prison guards’ union, who built that union into a monster political power and who now works as the primary political consultant for the LAPPL and the California State Law Enforcement Association. Novey reportedly wanted to release the recording closer to the election, but got talked into last week instead.

Novey was also reportedly the prime mover behind getting the PAC of which the LAPD union is a primary member to inject $450,000 into the campaign in Whitman’s behalf at the end of September, just after Nannygate first blew up.

---

PUTTING IT IN WRITING

6. Someone at the union—everyone presumes it was Novey-–also released to media outlets a “certified” transcript of the recording, which was transcribed by court reporter named Lori Odell Kennedy of of Kennedy Court Reporters Inc.

(I have my very own copy of the thing, some of which you’ll find after the jump.)

Bafflingly the transcript is riddled with inaccuracies, some small, others more egregious like the fact that court reporter Kennedy clearly and unambiguously attributes the “whore” remark to Jerry Brown—although it is absolutely positively not Brown’s voice saying those words.

7. Unfortunately, the LA Times’ Seema Mehta, who first broke the Whoregate story, did not go back and do her own transcribing or voice analysis but instead dutifully regurgitated mostly what the union gave her in her news report of Oct 8: “Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown or one of his associates can be heard referring to his Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a ‘whore.’”

(Granted, at least Mehta included the possibility that the whore blurter was someone other than Jerry. But even that is bothersome as anyone who listens to the thing a few times can easily determine that it is positively not Brown who made the “whore,” remark.)

In fact, closer listening makes clear that the person uttering the “W” word….is not a man at all—but a woman.

---

SUGAR AND SPICE AND EVERYTHING NICE

8. Of course, if a woman used the word to make a point of political criticism, while it may not be polite, it does somewhat undercut the dramatic cries of vile sexism and the need for the fainting couch.

NOTE: Bill Bradley , writing for Huff Post, first got the gender issue right over the weekend. Then on Sunday, Fox News speculated that the woman in question on the recording is Brown’s wife, Anne Gust Brown—an attorney and former CFO of Gap who is central to his campaign.

(I don’t know Ms. Brown’s voice well enough to know for sure, but the notion is not in the least implausible.)

---

BUT WHY LET FACTS INTERVENE WHEN A NICE WHOREGATE IS AT STAKE?

9. Much of the text that the LA Times reports (and that most other news outlets have parroted) is also incorrect—but simply adheres to the LAPL commissioned transcript—which suggests that Brown takes in the phrase “she’s a whore” and then contemplates putting out an ad that employs this sentiment.

A nice story, to be sure, but A. it isn’t true and B.it would be something of a psychotic ad strategy, doncha think?

(Hey, what say we call Ms. Whitman a whore in our next 30-second ad buy? You good with that? Okay, good.)

NOTE: For those of you who’d like to check for yourself, go here. Dennis Romero at the LA Weekly has posted a cleaner audio that makes differentiating the words and voices easier. (Thank you, Dennis!

10. So as CalBuzz also noted, this brings up a rather vexing question: Is LAPPL deliberately trying to spread misinformation to media members about Brown’s accidental phone recording?

---

WHEREFORE ART THOU REPORTERS?

11. And what about the media’s due diligence?

And while we’re on the subject of the horror of calling one’s political opponents “whores,” CalBuzz also dug up the fact that former Governor Pete Wilson, who is also Whitman’s campaign manager, in 1995 called the Congress “whores to public employees unions.”

So was Wilson’s remark also an “appalling and unforgivable smear” and a “despicable slur” against the women in Congress, and “to the women of California”—or America, or whomever—as Whitman spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, said of Jerry Brown (even though he didn’t use the word, but Wilson did)?

(If so, will Meg be dumping Pete off the campaign forthwith?)

Or do we just figure that Wilson and the still unidentified woman Brown staffer (or wife) were just opining rather coarsely that certain people (Congress/Whitman) were politically beholden to certain big unions, even when they swore they wouldn’t be?

12. There’s a new debate between Whitman and Brown on Tuesday night. It ’twill be interesting to find out if whores and nannies will be at all a part of it.

---

Okay, below you’ll find the central clip from the LAPPL “certified” transcript and the same clip from my re-translation.

Read the rest of this entry »

As you may or may not have heard by now, a voice mail recording was released Thursday afternoon by the Los Angeles Times, which allows us to eavesdrop on what was intended to be a private conversation between Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown, and what one assumes is a room full of campaign staffers.

(For the audio, click here.)

The recording was made by accident after Brown tried to phone Scott Rate, an official of the LAPPL, the Los Angeles police union, to talk about endorsements. Brown did not reach Rate–who is in charge of the union’s political endorsements—so left a message. Then, believing he’d hung up the receiver, Brown went on talking to staffers. And Rate’s voice mail kept on recording—meaning a not-intended-for-prime-time conversation between Brown and a cluster of staff members was preserved for posterity.

The conversation in question was about the fact that it had just been reported that Brown’s opponent, Meg Whitman, had received the endorsement of another law enforcement union, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn. almost solely because she had guaranteed that, if she of was elected—law enforcement agencies and firefighters would be exempt from any pension reforms—budget crisis or no budget crisis. Brown, who wanted the LAPPL’s endorsement but, by then, was figuring he wasn’t going to get it, opined that they too would go with Whitman because she had been willing to guarantee some kind of quid pro quo arrangement, whereas he was not.

At some point in the multi-voice conversation that followed -–and which the voice mail dutifully recorded—a staffer (or an associate, or someone in the room, but we presume some kind of young-ish sounding campaign staffer)—called Whitman a “whore,” for her guarantee not to take any whacks at the cops’ pensions, despite the fact that pension reform was one of her biggest campaign planks.

Here’s a clip from the LA Times article that has thus far resulted:

The comment came after Brown called the Los Angeles Police Protective League in early September to ask for its endorsement. He left a voicemail message for Scott Rate, a union official. Brown apparently believed he had hung up the phone, but the connection remained intact and the voice mail machine captured an ensuing conversation between Brown and his aides.

With evident frustration, Brown discussed the pressure he was under to refuse to reduce public safety pensions or lose law enforcement endorsements to Whitman. Months earlier, Whitman had agreed to exempt public safety officials from key parts of her pension reform plan.

But here’s the interesting part.

“Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ‘em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t,” Brown said.

At that point, what appears to be a second voice interjects: “What about saying she’s a whore?”

Okay, but here’s the interesting part:

The recording was made…. when would you guess? Thursday? Monday? Last week?

No, it was made in early September—just a day or two before the LAPPL endorsed Whitman. (The union issued their endorsement on September 16.)

Yet, although they’ve had the thing for over a month, it was just on Thursday that the LAPPL suddenly felt honor-bound to fork over the recording to the Times. (Freedom of information! Gotta do one’s civic duty, doncha know!)

In truth, the recording isn’t terribly important. Listen to it and you’ll find a nice little piece of theater, a small but genuine peek into a single moment of a high stakes political campaign. Aside from the comment in question (which is not exactly fall-on-the-floor shocking in nature), the overlapping dialogue, in which candidate and staffers, overrun each others’ sentences in a hyperventilated interweave, is like something that Robert Altman might have written, were he alive and scripting a film about this race.

No, what is important in all this is the timing of the release. It is difficult to find another explanation for the union’s sudden compulsion to get the recording off its collective chest that does not relate to an attempt at politically-timed mud-lobbing for their candidate of choice.

After watching Whitman continue to reel from the Allred/Nicky narrative, did the LAPL hope to create a counter-narrative of their own?

Well, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps in the past couple of rainy days the union folks were just using the down time to clean out their closets when—Sacre bleu!—what did they find?! A bootleg recording! Whoaa! Cool!

Yep, maybe that’s it.

Happy Friday.

---

NOTE: As I was getting ready to post, the Brown campaign has apologized for any offense their “salty” language might have caused Ms. Whitman.

And Whitman spokeswoman Sarah Pompei has expressed her shock, SHOCK, I tell you! at the incident to the LA Times. To wit: “The use of the term ‘whore’ is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording.”

So who won Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate?

Look, I admit I’m not terribly objective. I don’t like Meg Whitman at all as a candidate. Whereas, I’ve known Jerry Brown for 34 years and think that he’s still one of the most interesting people in California political life, and assuredly one of the brightest in this or any other state. Yeah, he’s got flaws (everybody does), but he was a governor who advanced a list of prescient policies that both Republicans and Democrats have cribbed from for several decades. More recently, he’s been a tough and excellent attorney general—more so, I think, than the public generally knows. More to the point, it may very well be that EGB Jr. is readier than he has ever been in his life to do the job for which he is running.

Plus, at 72, he still has enough energy to light several medium sized cities.

With regard to Whitman, I am bothered by several things. For one thing, I don’t like that she makes sh*t up. Virtually all of her attacks against Brown involve either straight out falsities, or taking facts out of context in such a way that they become false, by definition.

To give you an example of the latter, Whitman says Brown took a $6 billion surplus and turned it into a $1 billion deficit—the implication being that Brown walked into office when California had a surplus and spent himself and the state into the red. However, Whitman fails to mention the inconvenient facts that it was well-known fiscal conservative Jerry Brown who created the surplus in the first place. As for the deficit, after the passage of Prop. 13, it was only Brown’s surplus, combined with his savvy budgeting, that allowed the state to avoid huge deficits—without slashing such basics as schools and highways.

In addition, in watching the debate, I saw that Whitman was well rehearsed, whereas Jerry has a bone-deep grasp of issues.

That is not to say that Jerry didn’t misstep. I think it was a mistake to only talk only about green jobs, while Whitman gave the impression that she has ways to create jobs in the broader sense—although she is short on practical details as to how she would accomplish all this job creation.

In general, Whitman made promises that are not within her power to deliver. Shwarzenegger made a lot of promises too and, unlike Whitman, whom I find disingenuous, I think he fully intended to keep them—but he had no idea how to get the cooperation of the legislature. In that Whitman’s management experience has been limited to the context of a employees who depend upon her for their paychecks, there is nothing that tells us she could do any better. Yet she comes to the task with the same narcissistic arrogance.

But, like I said, I’m biased. I know and like him. I don’t like her.

So….what did you think? Who do you feel won the debate and why?

While you’re contemplating the question, some debate highlights:

---

MOST HUMOROUS REMARK BY A CANDIDATE

(It was noted that Brown ran for president of the United States twice before, one of those times when he was only a year into his term as governor. So what kind of assurances could Jerry offer the voters that he would focus solely on the job of being mayor?)

BROWN: Age.

Hell, if I was younger you know I would be running again.

One more thing, I now have a wife. You know, I come home at night. I don’t try to close down the bars in Sacramento like I used to when I was governor of California….

---

SCARIEST STATEMENT THAT PROGRESSIVE CA VOTERS MIGHT WANT TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN THEY GO TO THE POLLS

WHITMAN: I will appoint very conservative judges to the bench….

---

MOST MANGLED USE OF A FOLKSY APHORISM

(Combating Whitman’s accusation that Brown was beholden to special interests.)

BROWN: This is a little bit like the kettle calling the pot black….

(First of all, it is the “pot” that calls the “kettle”….. ….. But whatever. We know Jerry meant that Whitman was the sooty kettle, but that leaves him as the pot? And what is our takeaway from that exactly? “I’m screwed but she is too?”)

---

2ND MOST HUMOROUS REMARK BY A CANDIDATE:

(Brown talking about how he wouldn’t take his pension until he was 80 if he served two terms.)

BROWN: I’m the best pension buy California has ever seen.

---

BEST PRE-REHEARSED “OH, SNAP! TAKE THAT, MO-FO!” LINE, ACCOMPANIED BY A SMUG LOOK

(About whether her opponent can stand up to the state’s powerful unions.)

WHITMAN: It’s like putting Count Dracula in charge of the blood bank!”

---

MOST SWEARING BY A CANDIDATE:

BROWN: Two “Hells” and one “damn.”

---

So there you have it. Opinions?

(Photo by Hector Amezcua / Reuters)

---

---

PS: JUDGE STOPS EXECUTION

The LA Times has the story.

A federal judge Tuesday ordered a halt to the execution of convicted rapist and murderer Albert Greenwood Brown, saying there was “no way” the court could conduct a proper review of new lethal injection procedures before the inmate was scheduled to die Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel reversed a decision he handed down Friday that the execution could go forward if the state gave Brown the option of dying by a single-injection method used in other states, rather than the three-drug cocktail prescribed by California’s new regulations.

Here’s the rest.

When one listens to a lot of politicians and lawmakers, both local and national officeholders, one finds oneself noticing that—aside from their politics (with which one might agree or disagree)— their thinking isn’t all that….well….clear. They are short on the ability to follow logic. They are ill informed. And some of them, while not stupid exactly, are not going to score off anybody else’s charts intellectually.

That is never the issue with Edmund G. Brown Jr.-–otherwise known as Jerry.

Agree with him or don’t, but Brown is inevitably fun to talk with because he enjoys following a thought down any kind of challenging intellectual pathway—his own or yours—if you offer one in the course of a conversation or interview.

He reads maniacally, and he’s genuinely curious. And he knows how to think, which is, after all, a skill, and a rarer one, it seems, in all professions, than would be ideal.

This doesn’t mean Jerry Brown would be the best governor for this moment in California’s history—although he also might be.

I’m simply pointing out that Jerry is very, very smart. I cannot listen to him without being reminded of that fact. And, all things being equal, in my book, smarter is better.