CA: Microphone captures state Democratic leaders' closed-door remarks

Sac Bee ^ | 7/22/03 | AP

[NormsRevenge]

Public debate on substantive budget issues came to a halt Tuesday as Democrats leaders scrambled to explain why a handful of their members were caught speaking frankly about using the budget crisis to their political advantage.

Members of a liberal Democratic group met behind closed doors Monday unaware that a microphone was broadcasting their words throughout the Capitol on about 500 "squawk boxes" that serve legislative offices, lobbyists and reporters.

[NormsRevenge]

This is what the demRats think of you, California voters. Do you deserve this kind of treatment 8-?

2004 , send a message to the rest of the demRats in the state legislature. Get Out and Stay out!

[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[jagrmeister]

Look, the liberal media needs to be dismantled and this article is Exhibit A as to why. The Democrat assemblywoman made the scandalous remark that the budget should be torpedoed and the California economy put at risk all to score political points. This should be front page news. Instead, minor mention is made to it and importantly- the newspaper lets Democrats defuse the crisis by quoting them BEFORE they even mention the Assemblywoman's scandalous remarks. Her remarks are at the bottom of the "news report"- as if they were a footnote.

[Credo]

Recall works on legislators in California too.

[Chad Fairbanks]

The idea, she said, is give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase.

Ooh. It would be horrible. Beyond horrible. Why, it would be TRAGIC, even. I mean, people would have to rely on even less handouts! Why, that's not just TRAGIC, it's.. it's... oh, wait. It's a GOOD thing...

[NormsRevenge]

FRom Yahoo! News

"The Summer of the demRats of Deception"

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=democratic_party

Check it our, Folks!

Latest Developments

Open Mic Catches California Democrats
(AP) - Unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their words around the Capitol, Assembly Democrats meeting behind closed doors debated prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain. Members of the coalition of liberal Democrats talked about slowing progress on the budget as a means of increasing pressure on Republicans. A microphone had been left on during the closed meeting Monday, and the conversation was transmitted to about 500 "squawk boxes" that enable staff members, lobbyists and reporters to listen in on legislative meetings. More...

• Democrats' Budget Debate - Excerpts [PDF] (CA GOP Caucus)
• Calif. Budget Crisis (PPIC) | Message board

[mdittmar]

This is hugh,breaking news stuff,caught them saying what we all know they want,from State House to State Capital,to try and use any bad news to win politacal points.

Be it a downturn in an economy or a soldiers life given in battle, they get giddy over it.

They're disgusting,my disdain for them grows each day,they make me sick.

[Weimdog]

"Goldberg has said that her comments were part of a larger discussion about whether it would be better to make deeper cuts this year -- as Republicans have proposed. The idea, she said, is give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase."

Besides the fact that "Hurricane" Jackie Goldberg was probably lying, why doesn't she side with the Republicans and not raise taxes? She knows damn well the state won't fall into the ocean if spending is cut 4% across the board. She's a coward.

Bring it on Jackie! I want to taste how bad it will be.

[mdittmar]

State Capital=U.S.Capital,take a chill pill.

[NormsRevenge]

FRom a pdf off Yahoo!

EXCEPTS FROM DEMOCRATIC STUDY GROUP DISCUSSION

July 21, 2003

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: Hannah-Beth, are you saying that if we don’t take it to the point if we don’t get more revenues, we do not support a budget that has an additional $1.5 billion worth of cuts. … At least to start it off at the point of discussion

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …the question is how are they going to formulate the budget they are going to send over to us. Where’s the next $1.5 billion in cuts going to come from?

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: I understand that, Hannah-Beth. My point is, given that we know we are not going to get new revenues the, is what we’re saying that we just want to have input as to where those cuts are going to be or are we saying we don’t support cuts that deeply into this budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …The question is, I think we’re looking at $1.5 billion worth of cuts …

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Dymally]: Hannah-Beth, …what are we asking, what are we saying to the Senate folks?

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …We want to know what your plan is…what are you proposing?…the reality is that when the Senate sends it over to us, it is going … it is going to be a problem in 04-05. We want them to respect our input so that we can go out when we do get a budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Nunez: No. But, you know, there’s a very responsible perspective to that, in that precipitating the crisis does not necessarily mean that -- if you’re thinking about this is, the strategy for the 55 percent, all the polls, all the polls suggest that if you don’t have a budget, that it lent itself to help support the effort for the 55 percent. That’s what the proponents say -CTA and the others - are saying about that. In addition, in terms of the recall, the extent to which the Governor can do a good job of making a connection between having no budget and the1

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: Hannah-Beth, are you saying that if we don’t take it to the point if we don’t get more revenues, we do not support a budget that has an additional $1.5 billion worth of cuts. … At least to start it off at the point of discussion

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …the question is how are they going to formulate the budget they are going to send over to us. Where’s the next $1.5 billion in cuts going to come from?

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: I understand that, Hannah-Beth. My point is, given that we know we are not going to get new revenues the, is what we’re saying that we just want to have input as to where those cuts are going to be or are we saying we don’t support cuts that deeply into this budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …The question is, I think we’re looking at $1.5 billion worth of cuts …

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Dymally]: Hannah-Beth, …what are we asking, what are we saying to the Senate folks?

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …We want to know what your plan is…what are you proposing?…the reality is that when the Senate sends it over to us, it is going … it is going to be a problem in 04-05. We want them to respect our input so that we can go out when we do get a budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Nunez: No. But, you know, there’s a very responsible perspective to that, in that precipitating the crisis does not necessarily mean that -- if you’re thinking about this is, the strategy for the 55 percent, all the polls, all the polls suggest that if you don’t have a budget, that it lent itself to help support the effort for the 55 percent. That’s what the proponents say -CTA and the others - are saying about that. In addition, in terms of the recall, the extent to which the Governor can do a good job of making a connection between having no budget and the1

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: Hannah-Beth, are you saying that if we don’t take it to the point if we don’t get more revenues, we do not support a budget that has an additional $1.5 billion worth of cuts. … At least to start it off at the point of discussion

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …the question is how are they going to formulate the budget they are going to send over to us. Where’s the next $1.5 billion in cuts going to come from?

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: I understand that, Hannah-Beth. My point is, given that we know we are not going to get new revenues the, is what we’re saying that we just want to have input as to where those cuts are going to be or are we saying we don’t support cuts that deeply into this budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …The question is, I think we’re looking at $1.5 billion worth of cuts …

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Dymally]: Hannah-Beth, …what are we asking, what are we saying to the Senate folks?

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …We want to know what your plan is…what are you proposing?…the reality is that when the Senate sends it over to us, it is going … it is going to be a problem in 04-05. We want them to respect our input so that we can go out when we do get a budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Nunez: No. But, you know, there’s a very responsible perspective to that, in that precipitating the crisis does not necessarily mean that -- if you’re thinking about this is, the strategy for the 55 percent, all the polls, all the polls suggest that if you don’t have a budget, that it lent itself to help support the effort for the 55 percent. That’s what the proponents say -CTA and the others - are saying about that. In addition, in terms of the recall, the extent to which the Governor can do a good job of making a connection between having no budget and the2 Republican [inaud] on the recall -- I don’t know if any of you have heard the Darrell Issa commercials on the radio, but they’re all about the budget. It’s all about what’s going on right now. That’s why he wants to be governor. And he’s saying “we don’t have a budget because of Gray Davis.” The folks that are heading up the anti-recall effort think if you don’t have the budget, it helps Democrats in the recall effort. If you don’t have a budget, it helps Democrats on the 55 percent. So if you’re looking strictly at outcomes in terms of how we’re preparing and gearing ourselves to win the war on the 55 percent, there are, [inaud] I mean, there’s…

* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: The question that I have, is that - and I go back to both ‘92 and to ‘78 - when people never saw what, they never got to see really up front and close what Prop 13 really did. Because what we did in education was is that teachers started subsidizing their classrooms, and we cut out art and we cut out music and we cut out drama and we cut out sports in some areas and, cut out tutoring and [inaud] teachers and we raised class size. And people thought: look, schools are all still open, this didn’t hurt anyone. Some of us are thinking that maybe people should see the pain up close and personal, right now.

* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: …they are 10, 10, and 5 over there. Ten want to hold out for [inaud], ten want to [inaud], and five [inaud]. We’re going to try and find out tomorrow where we are. “

* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: But we have to figure out what we do think. And I do think it has to be in line with two things, and that’s one of the reasons that I asked Mr. Dymally to get us together. One is how it impacts the 55 percent proposition. And secondly whether or not - if there’s going to be a crisis to happen - if there’s going to be a crisis, whether it should be this year or next year, in terms of members of our House who want to get re-elected, in terms of members of our House who [inaud]. Personally, I think the crisis is better off this year than next year. But that’s a discussion that I just want to make sure you have, and that’s happens, and that’s why [inaud]…

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Laird]: …to talk with her about the budget and see if that’s the thing that we feel like those concerns have been removed and that it’s worked as a political strategy. If we got every Dem but Marco and Richman to go up on it, and suddenly … I mean that’s the first line that can be crossed in public. Politically, there’s some statements. And if the Senate is about to send something worse, they might be in a better position and it might even force the out-year issue. I think that’s a strategy worth taking a hard look at. And maybe an intermediate step is meeting with them to see if, strategy-wise, if that is something worth recommending to this group. And should we toss that out?

Assemblymember Goldberg: I will say that Canciamilla reported that Richman would not go for that budget. I hear that if it didn’t include a commitment on workers’ comp -- 17200 and other structural needs.

Unidentified Assemblymember: So technically it’s (inaude)

Assemblymember Goldberg: So here’s the question.

Unidentified Assemblymember: You said both of those and some other structure.

Assemblymember Dymally: Alan? Alan?

Assemblymember Jackson: We need to also keep in mind there is another factor here. We’ve got a problem. Excuse me, but don’t Mr. Brulte and Mr. Cox dislike each other? So, will Cox automatically accept a Brulte budget, or is there something else?

Unidentified Assemblymember: That’s another story

Assemblymember Jackson: Well, yes that is another story.

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Levine]: It’s our story. It’s our story. If we’re sitting there getting hit. At some point, the decision, as John said, has got to be 28 Republicans or 26 Dems; it’s really their budget. So, that more Republicans go up and yet the Cox/Brulte thing – you know, they hate each other – because… I don’t want to go up on that budget.

Assemblymember Goldberg: Yes

Assemblymember Laird: And whether it’s two of us who have less than 50 percent Dems in our district that have high green turnouts or something like that. You know (inaudible).

Assemblymember Goldberg: It’s up to my successor…..

Unidentified Assemblymember: Yes, that’s not where we need to be put up our budget. So, there needs to be a lot of Republicans up to give some people a pass and the Cox-Brulte thing is very much trouble.

Assemblymember Goldberg: That won’t happen. I think it’s very unlikely that a Democrat will get a pass on any of these budgets. I just don’t think that’s going to happen. If I might just say, I think Allan and Patty both worked on that budget didn’t you? I think it would be wonderful if we could find out in Canciamilla and Richman.

Unidentified Staffer: Excuse me, guys, you can be heard outside.

Assemblymember Goldberg: Oh, shit.

Unidentified Staffer: The squawk box is on – you need to turn it off right there.

Assemblymember Goldberg: How could that happen?

[blackbart1]

Recall works on legislators in California too.

I'm ready...get me a petition.

[fhayek]

Assemblymember Goldberg: Oh, shit.

I bet this guy could get a gig on a Snickers commercial.

[Henchster]

You must have missed that this is in Kalifornia.

Jackie Goldberg is a admitted lesbian, not a man.

[Cicero]

What does it say about an Assemblyperson's IQ when somebody tells him that the mike is life and people are listening to what's being said and he replies in a loud voice, "Oh, shit!"

[Arpege92]

OK...let's sit back and wait for the "Jackass" party to blame republicans for intentionally turning a mike on for all the world to hear! Let it rip liberals....I'm waiting!

[phillyfanatic]

Having suffered here in SoCal since 1962 with liberal DEM legislators, this dust up is just one more proof of Bob Mulholland's prevaricating advice to Dem pols. John Campbell, Pub. was on Hugh Hewitt's show today and did a great job of explaining the perfidy of the Dems in not only lying but Hugh mentioned that House Dems do the very same thing by convoluting facts in legislation and then blaming the poor Pubs. Who, btw, rarely fight back. Thank God, that since '94, the Pubs fire back more often. Now only if W would give up his silly 'new tone' junk and begin to stand up for his agenda and start blasting the liberal liars. He won't but he should.

[Mark]

Friends don't tape-record friends! Let's move on.(/lib spin)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Carry - a transcript!

[slimer]

DEMACOCKROACHARATS

[BenLurkin]

Typical Bolsheviks.

[Centurion2000]

BUMP

[Carry_Okie]

I LOVE IT!!!

Assemblyman? Laird, sweetie, youse better get your pansy ass home, honey, you've gots splainin' to do.

[weikel]

Wohoo

[NormsRevenge]

Can you help me out with a piece of this Recall ballot process?

If you vote NO to the first part of the Recall ballot, are you still allowed to select a replacement as well?

ElkGroveDan says yes you can still vote for a replacement, tho usually a lot of the first part No voters don;t vote for a replacement anyway.

Both may well be true , but it seems like hedging your bet to me , too.

Have you seen in the code where this is stated specifically? I hate passing on pad info.

Thanks

Yeah, Laird, what a geeeeshh,, LOL

[NormsRevenge]

pad=bad

[ElkGroveDan]

NR, I have sat in registrars offices watching the returns come in on recalls. I was very involved in the Horcher and Allen recalls in 1995. Honest...everyone gets to vote for the replacement (I don't have the code in front of me right now.)

[Carry_Okie]

I think the way it works is that if a ballot has a mark on a particular choice, it gets counted. The only conditional on that is if one chooses too many candidates for a race, such as picking more than one candidate for a single seat, or more candidates than allowed for a multiple seat race ("Select any five from among the following...). I don't even know if there is software for deciding whether to count one vote on a ballot based upon another.

[NormsRevenge]

No jab intended, Sir. I don;t mind being shown to be wrong and doing my best to correct my error.

Just like to nail the actual wording down code-wise and then mull why NO voters should get to both vote to keep a transgressor and also select a replacement.

To me , there is some element of unfairness involved, but maybe it's just me. Im no Hiram Johnson, obviously. ;-)

Thanks!

Bobsat, EATB, Carry_Okie, I may have overinterpreted my "understanding" of the actual ballot process itself.. again. Sounds like you can vote No and still vote for a replacement.

I may have to start an initiative to have that amended. ;-) LOL .. But First Recall Davi$!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It would be nice for some of the great researchers here to find the specifics in the election code or wherever!

[NormsRevenge]

LOL... It's not like we don;t have things to do as IS ;-P

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not a jab at you or anyone else!

[SierraWasp]

"I LOVE IT!!!"

Can you, or anyone else reading this, tell me what the perceived rift between Cox and Brulte is about. If it's a secert, then FReepMail me.

[NormsRevenge]

I know that EATB , I know! LOL

It must be the medications Im taking lately or the heat. Im giddy with anticipation over being part of a historically significant event and Im not just talking about just a major earthquake either.

I may wade back into the code for a bit later for fun and to help make me sleep.

Last night after taking my phenergan cough syrup, I actually dreamt Arianna won and she wanted me to service her hot tub recording devices for her to gather more dirt on her allies and enemies. ;-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Arianna?

You like the accent eh?

[NormsRevenge]

Nyahhh... Hell, enough of this cough syrup and I'll probably be an Anna Nicole fan soon tho ;-)

[CounterCounterCulture]

LOL! Just seeing this now. Classic!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. Simply look at those in office.They do not even belong to our society.

[VOA]

Microphone captures state Democratic leaders' closed-door remarks

Sure Democrats/liberals feel your pain.
Because they engineered it.
And blamed it on Republicans...quite a trick!