« Florida v. Texas | Main | California Democratic Convention: Day Two »

At the California State Democratic Convention

I’ve been absent from the blogosphere, but for a good cause. I got engaged and will be married on the steps of City Hall in June. I also went to Mexico—just south of the border—for R&R.

Much has happened since I last posted. Terri Schiavo died and Tom Delay is calling for retribution against the judges who didn’t stop it. Even his own Republicans are wincing and he has started to backtrack. Arash Sigarchi – the Iranian blogger sentenced to fourteen years in prison for criticizing his country’s leaders – has been freed on bail. The Dow Jones has fallen in the tank while gas prices are soaring.

Technorati reports one billion links, though that figure may be suspect due to the amount of dead links in cyberspace. I promise you that my blog won’t be one of them.

I am writing this from the press office in the Los Angeles Convention Center, where California Democrats have gathered for their annual convention. The Party faithful smell blood as our Republican governor runs into the buzz saw of teachers, nurses, prison guards and leaders of the AFL-CIO.

I am here seeking support for my candidacy for state attorney general. Next to the governor, this is the top executive job in the state. As governor, I signed--as every governor does--10,000 new laws. If elected, I will be in a position to interpret and enforce these laws.

Now more than ever, what is needed is balance and life experience in the face of government running amok, making minute and invasive laws about everything. Isn’t it curious that the same solutions continue to chase the same problems?

More tomorrow from the convention.

April 15, 2005 | Permalink


Congrats on your upcoming campaign event... I mean nuptials!

Posted by: perkmashin | Apr 15, 2005 11:29:12 PM

Welcome back Jerry Brown! I wondered what the hell happened to you. Keep up the good work and thanks for blogging.

Posted by: Doug Kenline | Apr 15, 2005 11:44:36 PM

When you say 'interpret the law' what are you saying? It is one thing to read law. It is another to 'interpret' and since the Democrats, by way of the Clintons, are infamous for twisting, perverting, and distorting the law as written for the advancement of an anti-American agenda I am curious as to what YOU mean, Mr. Brown.

Posted by: James C. Hess | Apr 16, 2005 8:04:16 AM

The Democrats alone pervert and twist the law, Hess? The Republicans deny that inflicting cruel physical and psychological punishments on prisoners is torture. Of course, they're not really prisoners, they're "detainees." Wipe the schmeg out of your eyes, Hess. Neither party monopolizes the perversity in the USA.

Posted by: Ernest Miller | Apr 16, 2005 10:40:00 AM

Mr. Miller, my question was and remains directed to Mr. Brown.

If you care to present factual, relevant evidence that proves my inquiry null and void, please do so.

And I invite you to demonstrate a measure of civilty as well instead of your unabashed contempt and rudeness.

Good manners are never a bad thing.

Posted by: James C. Hess | Apr 16, 2005 11:57:21 AM

If only we had Clinton back "subverting" and "twisting' the law to favor the common man. Instead we have Bush and his handlers obfuscating real issues and their possible real solutions. Bushies speak of life and deal in death. They have been unwavering in giving treasure to their own, the rich. The lies, the propaganda, and the contempt for wage earners who created the wealth are unprecedented.

Posted by: Mike Suddarth | Apr 16, 2005 1:38:04 PM

I repeat:

If you care to present factual, relevant evidence that proves my inquiry null and void, please do so.

And I invite you to demonstrate a measure of civilty as well instead of your unabashed contempt and rudeness.

Posted by: James C. Hess | Apr 16, 2005 1:41:57 PM

Mr. H,

Are you able to present factual, relevant evidence supprting your assertion regarding Democrats and twisting the law?

In civility,

Mr S.

Posted by: Mike Suddarth | Apr 16, 2005 2:33:48 PM

You have my support for State Attorney General.

Posted by: Deborah White | Apr 16, 2005 4:38:03 PM

"They have been unwavering in giving treasure to their own, the rich."

That's rich, pun intended. I invite you to read the list of donors, and the size of their gifts, to the Democratic Party.

In spite of politics Jerry, congratulations on your upcoming wedding.

Posted by: Wallace-Midland, Texas | Apr 16, 2005 9:44:49 PM

Hess, you moronic, self-indulgent, reality-challenged, pretentious twit. Why don't YOU present something factual to back up your nonsensical accusations. Burden of proof and all that... And if you're such a "civility" freak, why the hell is that crazed, trashmout Ann Coulter topping the reading list on your blog ?

Posted by: reg | Apr 17, 2005 1:37:25 AM

Mr. Suddarth: The question is directed to Mr. Brown. I await his response.

Posted by: James C. Hess | Apr 17, 2005 8:24:08 AM

While the Right Wing Freako, HESS, is waiting for an answer from Jerry B, here's my take on his silly Q.

I think that Jerry's use of the word "interpret", i.e. (as I read it) construe and reach an understanding of the practical scope of a law, is perfectly appropriate. Many laws are precise and clear...some are less so. It's often the job of enforcers and prosecutors to make judgements as to application and how far to pursue and apply the letter in various cases. Enforcement and prosecution aren't devoid of greys and judgement calls. And of course, it's the job of judges to weigh in definitively when there is clear controversy. Most often, the key issue for judges isn't "interpreting" how to apply a law in practice but whether a law, or aspects of it, measure up to constitutional and legal precedents. And, of course, whether trials under the law have been conducted fairly and properly. The reality of law enforcement in the real world is that "interpretation" in some sense often falls to all parties involved at all levels, with the appeals courts being final arbiters of legal "interpretation" and ultimate guarantors of judicious, appropriate application. I don't think there's anything controversial about Brown's language, despite this Hess clown calling it into question by reference to a percieved anti-American plot by Evil Clintonian Democrats. Typically of the mindless paranoid wingnuttery that appears to be in full flower these days among a vocal minority who've foolishly confused themselves with mainstream America.

Posted by: reg | Apr 17, 2005 10:56:25 AM

I wouldn't hold my breath Hess.

Jerry Brown is wise enough to know that one should never argue with an idiot. People might not be able to tell the difference!

Posted by: SkyHunter | Apr 17, 2005 2:50:37 PM

Jerry, why don't you run for the senate or the house? You would make a great member of Congress. Just wondering.

Posted by: Mary Ann Bailey | Apr 17, 2005 3:12:53 PM

I'd like to thank Mr. Suddarth, Mr. Miller and reg for telling it like it is. Right wingers seem to think only their opinions matter. Wasn't their an infamous Nazi with the last name of Hess as well?

Since I've brought up Nazi's, it is disturbing and ironic that an Austrian has commandered the governor's office. He is a powermad, megolomaniac. I think he actually despises the Bay Area. But, the Bay Area is very different from the rest of the country. We have Senator Boxer standing up for us, Representative Barbara Lee the lone nay vote against a military invasion of Iraq(under false pretenses), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and of course you Mayor Brown.

In this era of selling our democracy to other countries, while our Constitution is being trampled. With the looting of the U.S. Treasury, bankrupting Social Security and squandering every last wilderness area for utter waste and corporate profit, will our country still be ours in four more years?

Oh well, at least we have some true believers in democracy, here in the Bay Area. Thank you Jerry, for giving us(We the People)an opportunity to voice our opinions. Congratulations on your engagement.

Posted by: horhay | Apr 17, 2005 5:29:23 PM

Quick, shout down the right-winger.

Unfortunately, I think I can respond to Hess' question...
The legal code has become so voluminous and complex that knowing it in its entirety is beyond the reach of anyone I know. What we're left with is, of necessity, interpretation.

Posted by: Dishman | Apr 18, 2005 9:58:21 AM

Congratulations on your candidacy! Thanks for announcing on your blog. Mayor Brown, you're always way ahead of the technology curve.


Posted by: Jason | Apr 18, 2005 10:33:31 PM

Yes Mr. Brown I think you should run and good luck.
And to the Libs and NeoCons who banter back and forth insulting each other. Whatever failures you see in our government it is all of our responsibility to fix. In America we are the government by virtue of our votes. And if any of you say, "I didn't vote for him so I am not to blame" I can truthfully say that you don't believe in our Democracy.
So enough spin and enough lies, all of us are Americans and the government is one.

Posted by: David | Apr 19, 2005 4:39:58 AM

I don't want to get into the comment war above, just a word from a conservative. I won't quibble about what you mean by interpret the law. What I hear is that you want to bring some tradition and balance back to Democrat politics in California and if that is what you are about, more power to you.

Posted by: Ralph | Apr 19, 2005 7:48:00 AM

Hmm, might there be a sock puppet on this site?
And possibly more than one?

Posted by: Patty | Apr 19, 2005 9:36:44 AM

Holy cow, 10,000 new laws? How about breaking the mold and coming up with a few thousand laws that we could do without?

If there is a shortage of funding, how about some "enforcement guidance" identifying laws that don't need to be enforced. Providing that guidance to state prosecutors, to the people, and to law enforcement would really focus attention on the remaining laws that should be enforced.

Posted by: Don Meaker | Apr 19, 2005 6:17:54 PM

As a resident of New York, I am sorry that I can't give you my vote for the office of Attorney General.

Nevertheless, I wish you luck.

Congratulations on your upcoming marriage.

All the best to you and your bride.

Posted by: DOROTHY | Apr 21, 2005 7:10:42 AM

It was a great convention. One of the highlights was seeing you again. I am very glad that you are back in state politics. It would also be great if you wound up on the national ticket in 2008.

I remember all the great things you did for our state when you were governor. The state would be in much better shape if we had had more governors like you.

I would have liked to have seen you drop by the progressive caucus. We allowed all the candidates who dropped by to speak. We even let Steve Wesley and Rock Delgadillo speak. I don't know what the rules are regarding caucus endorsements, but under the bylaws of the progressive caucus, it certainly could not back any AG candidate other than you. Abolition of the death penalty is in the purpose statement of the caucus. Your personal opposition to the death penalty makes you the closest candidate to the purpose statement. The tide is turning in California. A lot of people who are undecided about candidates readily jump into your camp when the position of the other candidates on the death penalty is mentioned. Last May, the California Democratic Party voted almost unanimously to adopt a resolution calling for a legislated moratorium on the death penalty. If we get one, it will make your job a lot easier.

Congratulations on your engagement. Good luck to you in everything.

Posted by: Ruth | Apr 21, 2005 11:17:08 PM

I was directed to your blog by CNN.com and thought "It's great that a person who is supposed to be a herald of the people (elected official) is actually doing something to allow them to acually hear the voice of the people they represent."

Great job!!

Posted by: Robbie | Apr 29, 2005 2:50:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.