I'm a lefty Democrat who served on the Durham City Council in the 90's--to run effectively, I cut off my pony tail and borrowed a suit (but that's another story). I organized, led and delivered 2 dozen on-the-ground victories for working people in my four years on council, including the the first Living Wage ordinance in NC (only the 3rd one in the country).
But possibly my longest term impact was persuading the new city manager--I delivered the winning vote--to fire, retire and demote seven department heads who just weren't getting the job done. OMG.
Too many of my colleagues on council were focused on getting their resolutions on some national issue passed, rather than just asking why the hell city government couldn't pick up the damn trash or fill the damn potholes. WTF!
I considered myself and my best allies to be pragmatic progressives. But the 90's was the beginning of what I called The Lefter-Than-Thou Party, AKA performative progressives.
There really is something wrong among with many of the leaders in the Dem party. I think part of the problem is that starting in 1968 a growing number of Dems in leadership were little rich kids with college degrees, who intellectualized everything and when they didn't accomplish anything, they just blamed the Republican'ts and patted themselves on the back for "being on the right side of history," etc.
They and the people in their bubble didn't suffer when they failed to improve things. And it was never their fault.
My parents didn't go to college and my dad had to drop out after the 8th grade, so my political life was always about helping working families live in less of a shit-show.
Too many of the little rich kids performing their progressive politics mostly want to be seen as the hero and they think they get points by alienating the moderates who we will Always Need to Win Elections. Ugh.
I can't disagree with your analysis and I hope you will consider submitting your letter as an op-ed in the newspaper.
Your story is inspirational. Would love to do this exact thing in my small Bay Area suburb city where the folks in charge have lost their ever loving minds. It feels pointless, but I love that you skipped the “legacy” policy stuff and went straight for firing and hiring effective people. That feels doable. Thanks for sharing.
The D-Party is either nothing like the party they were in the 80s, or they always have been divisive and corrupt, and I only just started to notice circa 2011.
I had never heard of this guy til you had him on. Told my wife I was thinking about voting for him and her jaw dropped, she was like "are you effing kidding?" Haha. She's not a fan of Bass or Raman either, is a pretty conventional dem, but basically thinks this guy is a joke. But I watched the debate and at this stage he's in the best of 3 evils category. At the same time I have enough self-awareness to think, "so this is how Trump voters were feeling in 2016, eh?" Just wanting a disruptor...which is kind of what Pratt would be. But I think I'm going to go with it and vote for him anyway. Not a big fan of any of the mayor or governor candidates and am tempted not to vote at all but I'm in your camp on this one.
Meghan, you might compare him to San Francisco Mayor, Lurie. He has been a miracle in San Francisco. Cleaned up the city quickly. He is an SF businessman who only ran because he was sick of the incompetence of SF governance. He doesn’t have higher aspirations. While SF is a ghost of its former self due to so many restaurants and businesses leaving, it is now going in the right direction. It is amazing to see the difference of-a few weeks before Lurie and a few weeks after Lurie became Mayor. You should interview Lurie and ask how he got things cleaned up so quickly.
I thought about the Trump comparison as well… it’s tough. Pratt even seems to have adopted certain verbal patterns either subconsciously or consciously form Trump… that’s not a good sign. At the same time, how can LA continue on with a status quo like this?
The apologetic caveat at the start is -- sorry to say (ha ha) -- part of the problem. Why is the only socially acceptable 'choice' among a large percentage of a certain demographic to vote for incompetent Democrat people who promote the "policies" that have been corroding our society and cities for decades now?
THEY are the ones who need to apologize for even considering to re-elect Basura! Two dry reservoirs! Making excuses and / or gas lighting over the filth and squalor? Why would anyone believe that her or the other woman would do anything to fix it? "All they need is a bed?" Are these women out of their goddamned minds?
I listened to the interview with Pratt and I was surprised that you took umbrage with the word 'asylum.' What's wrong with that word? That kind of thing, too, is part of the problem. (Meanwhile we have masses of so-called "asylum seekers" and that's OK...)
I have an essay baking on the REAL CAUSE of drug-addicted "zombies" littering the streets of LA; the cause is nothing any politician can do anything about but Pratt seems to have the best (patriarchal) solution: ZERO TOLERANCE.
And on that note, all anyone needs to do is open their eyes to what the tyranny of "tolerance" has shoveled into our public spaces. All manner of chaos and disfunction. (Makes those so-called 'dysfunctional families" certain people were determined to eschew by not making families of their own look quaint in comparison!) And there lies the rub! The joke is on us TOLERANT people!
So no, OF COURSE a vote for Bass or that other woman is blatantly STUPID. No need to apologize for looking farther afield. Get the zombies off the streets. Full stop. Make it illegal to live on the streets. It's untenable. I saw a post of a woman who stores her clothing in a burned cat carrier in which a kitten perished in a fire set at one of these encampments. The person who posted it says she still can't get the kitten's cries out of her mind.
So...anyone who votes for more of this is frankly a danger to society. They owe us all a huge apology and I would include anyone who voted for Kamala Harris to protract the D-Party corruption on a federal scale just as ignorant.
I don't have a problem with the word asylum. I was just trying to ask if he was worried about alienating a certain cohort with rhetoric like that. The answer seems to be no.
Back in the day, when I considered myself progressive, I wondered how people could vote against their own interests by voting for Reagan or Bush or Trump. I was truly puzzled!
Today I wonder how people can vote for Democrats who are clearly doing things against the public interest. And they think they’re betraying some essential principle by voting for someone who might overturn the damaging policies. I’m truly puzzled!
I'm from Altadena and have lived and worked in various parts of Southern California. Pratt isn't who I'd choose to be the candidate, but I'm certainly hoping he wins. It's true that he doesn't sound especially polished, and he definitely sounds like he's speaking for social media a lot of the time, but the fundamental things he's saying are obviously right. For anyone saying he's just a dumb reality TV guy, my question is why the other two leading candidates can't say anything that doesn't sound much more dumb or outrageous. Maybe most importantly, as Meghan points out, he's not running on national issues, and is focused on crucial local issues, which is exactly what a mayoral candidate should emphasize.
I’ll give home some reluctant consideration. The populists in LA I hear from are really pro-car and anti bike and pedestrian. They seem to like this guy, which is worrying to me. I don’t dream of a future with more traffic and fewer safe places to walk and bike around like these people do.
Just for the record, I am really happy that you are concentrating on these issues - particularly your podcasts have been extremely informative about the “modern” homeless crisis - that is the meth-driven/fentanyl one. Obviously housing first is a dated response (and wasn’t clearly the best response even in earlier times). Thanks for taking a stand and spreading the news. Did you read that Ashley Underwood (Larry David’s wife) hosted a fundraiser for Pratt? We live in very interesting times.
I thought the podcast was great. The last thing we need are more politicians pretending there is “nothing to see here”. I really wish you didn’t feel the need to explain yourself or apologize. I miss the good ‘ol days where I didn’t have to explain my political views to others. Sigh.
Wasn't an apology at all. I just know my audience well enough to know they deserve some context and background about why I did this episode and how Los Angeles city government works. The Apple/Spotify audio version has a much shorter intro and the YouTube version has none at all.
I was only vaguely aware of Pratt’s campaign until you posted your first video about him. Now I’m intrigued—can’t get enough of his content. Keep up the good work trying to open liberals’ minds!
I’m afraid Los Angelenos are in a suicidal empathy death spiral. Even though Democrats never do anything, they slogan the right things to pull the puppet strings of the virtue signalers.
If I were in LA, I would vote for him after reading about him, watching your interview and knowing who he is running against. We really need to change how we deal with the homeless problem in a way that it is clear many Democrats (Bass and Raman among them) are not prepared to do. That said, I appreciate that both Laurie in SF and Mahan in SJ are making real strides dealing with the homeless and “get it” in a way that Bass and Raman don’t.
That said, I was really bothered by one sentence of yours: “a fire destroyed nearly 7,000 structures because of city mismanagement”. I think there are legitimate criticisms of the city (and the state) for fire mismanagement but this statement is completely unfair.
Among the reasons for the fire’s devastation were the Santa Ana winds, which include extremely fast fires with very long-range embers, years of drought and increasingly “hot” fires tied to climate change, dense development in the wildland-urban interface, steep canyon geography that funnels wind and accelerate fire spread, and decades of political and public unwillingness to deal with the problem of such development. And, obviously, homeowners who had unhardened houses and properties didn’t help the situation at all. (Pratt in your interview acted like the winds weren’t that bad in the Palisades as opposed to Altadena, but all the evidence I have seen is that they were severe winds there – 60-80 mph gusts - though it was somewhat worse in Altadena .
Legit criticisms are or might be: while the empty reservoir was for maintenance, there didn’t seem to be any planning if a fire developed in that area; given the wildland-urban interface, there clearly wasn’t adequate fire-mitigation strategies employed (which was mostly the State of California’s fault, but LA certainly played a roll); there may be very legitimate criticisms – though I haven’t read enough to know the exact extent – of L.A. planning and coordination during the event. I will believe you, though, on these failures. But this is a very long way from “a fire destroyed nearly 7,000 structures because of city mismanagement ”.
Point taken. I was aiming for brevity, but the result was a sentence that was too absolute. The causes of the fire were complex, and more is being discovered all the time, including major cover-ups on the part of the city. What I should have said is that "city failures made a catastrophic situation significantly worse than it needed to be." Thanks for the check. I have issued a correction in the post.
As for the wind, it's a point of contention and there may be a timeline issue there. I think Pratt is saying that the winds were not especially strong when he first noticed the fire around 10am. I've talked to other people who were in the area that day and there are conflicting reports.
You might want to listen to Mike Pesca’s interview with CBS national news correspondent Jonathan Vigllioti who is based in LA and has just published a book about the utter malfeasance and incompetence surrounding the Palisades fire. After hearing what he had to say, I think “mismanagement” is 100% the proper framing
That well be - but my contention is that there are other contributing causes that have nothing to do with the LA Mayor’s office. Both can be true - which is my point.
As a 30 year Angeleno who is (I think) politically quite similar to you Meghan, I am excited to vote for Spencer Pratt. I didn't follow his reality tv days, but who wasn't saying dumb stuff in 2008? I'm most excited that he is the first candidate in my memory who is calling out the rampant, undeniable theft of our tax dollars. Billions have been allocated to solve the problems that have only grown worse every year. He has a good command of the issues, and has common sense, legally sound solutions to problems. I believe he will require accountability for those who we entrust with our tax money. I hope everyone remembers that they can simply lie to their lefty friends and say they voted for Bass or Ramen if a Pratt vote will impact their social life.
Well done!
I'm a lefty Democrat who served on the Durham City Council in the 90's--to run effectively, I cut off my pony tail and borrowed a suit (but that's another story). I organized, led and delivered 2 dozen on-the-ground victories for working people in my four years on council, including the the first Living Wage ordinance in NC (only the 3rd one in the country).
But possibly my longest term impact was persuading the new city manager--I delivered the winning vote--to fire, retire and demote seven department heads who just weren't getting the job done. OMG.
Too many of my colleagues on council were focused on getting their resolutions on some national issue passed, rather than just asking why the hell city government couldn't pick up the damn trash or fill the damn potholes. WTF!
I considered myself and my best allies to be pragmatic progressives. But the 90's was the beginning of what I called The Lefter-Than-Thou Party, AKA performative progressives.
There really is something wrong among with many of the leaders in the Dem party. I think part of the problem is that starting in 1968 a growing number of Dems in leadership were little rich kids with college degrees, who intellectualized everything and when they didn't accomplish anything, they just blamed the Republican'ts and patted themselves on the back for "being on the right side of history," etc.
They and the people in their bubble didn't suffer when they failed to improve things. And it was never their fault.
My parents didn't go to college and my dad had to drop out after the 8th grade, so my political life was always about helping working families live in less of a shit-show.
Too many of the little rich kids performing their progressive politics mostly want to be seen as the hero and they think they get points by alienating the moderates who we will Always Need to Win Elections. Ugh.
I can't disagree with your analysis and I hope you will consider submitting your letter as an op-ed in the newspaper.
Good luck.
Your story is inspirational. Would love to do this exact thing in my small Bay Area suburb city where the folks in charge have lost their ever loving minds. It feels pointless, but I love that you skipped the “legacy” policy stuff and went straight for firing and hiring effective people. That feels doable. Thanks for sharing.
The D-Party is either nothing like the party they were in the 80s, or they always have been divisive and corrupt, and I only just started to notice circa 2011.
Signed,
Never touching a D vote again.
To get to the White House, there is only one bus available for people like us--the Democratic Party.
Good luck getting this posted in the LA Times!
I had never heard of this guy til you had him on. Told my wife I was thinking about voting for him and her jaw dropped, she was like "are you effing kidding?" Haha. She's not a fan of Bass or Raman either, is a pretty conventional dem, but basically thinks this guy is a joke. But I watched the debate and at this stage he's in the best of 3 evils category. At the same time I have enough self-awareness to think, "so this is how Trump voters were feeling in 2016, eh?" Just wanting a disruptor...which is kind of what Pratt would be. But I think I'm going to go with it and vote for him anyway. Not a big fan of any of the mayor or governor candidates and am tempted not to vote at all but I'm in your camp on this one.
I've been wrestling with the Trump comparison, too. Though, interestingly, a few people have told me that the energy reminds them of Bernie Sanders.
Meghan, you might compare him to San Francisco Mayor, Lurie. He has been a miracle in San Francisco. Cleaned up the city quickly. He is an SF businessman who only ran because he was sick of the incompetence of SF governance. He doesn’t have higher aspirations. While SF is a ghost of its former self due to so many restaurants and businesses leaving, it is now going in the right direction. It is amazing to see the difference of-a few weeks before Lurie and a few weeks after Lurie became Mayor. You should interview Lurie and ask how he got things cleaned up so quickly.
I thought about the Trump comparison as well… it’s tough. Pratt even seems to have adopted certain verbal patterns either subconsciously or consciously form Trump… that’s not a good sign. At the same time, how can LA continue on with a status quo like this?
The apologetic caveat at the start is -- sorry to say (ha ha) -- part of the problem. Why is the only socially acceptable 'choice' among a large percentage of a certain demographic to vote for incompetent Democrat people who promote the "policies" that have been corroding our society and cities for decades now?
THEY are the ones who need to apologize for even considering to re-elect Basura! Two dry reservoirs! Making excuses and / or gas lighting over the filth and squalor? Why would anyone believe that her or the other woman would do anything to fix it? "All they need is a bed?" Are these women out of their goddamned minds?
I listened to the interview with Pratt and I was surprised that you took umbrage with the word 'asylum.' What's wrong with that word? That kind of thing, too, is part of the problem. (Meanwhile we have masses of so-called "asylum seekers" and that's OK...)
I have an essay baking on the REAL CAUSE of drug-addicted "zombies" littering the streets of LA; the cause is nothing any politician can do anything about but Pratt seems to have the best (patriarchal) solution: ZERO TOLERANCE.
And on that note, all anyone needs to do is open their eyes to what the tyranny of "tolerance" has shoveled into our public spaces. All manner of chaos and disfunction. (Makes those so-called 'dysfunctional families" certain people were determined to eschew by not making families of their own look quaint in comparison!) And there lies the rub! The joke is on us TOLERANT people!
So no, OF COURSE a vote for Bass or that other woman is blatantly STUPID. No need to apologize for looking farther afield. Get the zombies off the streets. Full stop. Make it illegal to live on the streets. It's untenable. I saw a post of a woman who stores her clothing in a burned cat carrier in which a kitten perished in a fire set at one of these encampments. The person who posted it says she still can't get the kitten's cries out of her mind.
So...anyone who votes for more of this is frankly a danger to society. They owe us all a huge apology and I would include anyone who voted for Kamala Harris to protract the D-Party corruption on a federal scale just as ignorant.
Enough is enough already.
I don't have a problem with the word asylum. I was just trying to ask if he was worried about alienating a certain cohort with rhetoric like that. The answer seems to be no.
https://www.theunspeakablepodcast.com/p/should-we-bring-back-asylums?utm_source=publication-search
Back in the day, when I considered myself progressive, I wondered how people could vote against their own interests by voting for Reagan or Bush or Trump. I was truly puzzled!
Today I wonder how people can vote for Democrats who are clearly doing things against the public interest. And they think they’re betraying some essential principle by voting for someone who might overturn the damaging policies. I’m truly puzzled!
I'm from Altadena and have lived and worked in various parts of Southern California. Pratt isn't who I'd choose to be the candidate, but I'm certainly hoping he wins. It's true that he doesn't sound especially polished, and he definitely sounds like he's speaking for social media a lot of the time, but the fundamental things he's saying are obviously right. For anyone saying he's just a dumb reality TV guy, my question is why the other two leading candidates can't say anything that doesn't sound much more dumb or outrageous. Maybe most importantly, as Meghan points out, he's not running on national issues, and is focused on crucial local issues, which is exactly what a mayoral candidate should emphasize.
I’ll give home some reluctant consideration. The populists in LA I hear from are really pro-car and anti bike and pedestrian. They seem to like this guy, which is worrying to me. I don’t dream of a future with more traffic and fewer safe places to walk and bike around like these people do.
I wish that is all we had to worry about
Building a city I want to live in vs building a city I don’t want to live in is an important consideration
Vote for more Democrat incompetence and fraud and you may not have a city
I moved out of LA for all the aforementioned reasons and, as such, can not vote in this election. But 100% agree.
Just for the record, I am really happy that you are concentrating on these issues - particularly your podcasts have been extremely informative about the “modern” homeless crisis - that is the meth-driven/fentanyl one. Obviously housing first is a dated response (and wasn’t clearly the best response even in earlier times). Thanks for taking a stand and spreading the news. Did you read that Ashley Underwood (Larry David’s wife) hosted a fundraiser for Pratt? We live in very interesting times.
I thought the podcast was great. The last thing we need are more politicians pretending there is “nothing to see here”. I really wish you didn’t feel the need to explain yourself or apologize. I miss the good ‘ol days where I didn’t have to explain my political views to others. Sigh.
Wasn't an apology at all. I just know my audience well enough to know they deserve some context and background about why I did this episode and how Los Angeles city government works. The Apple/Spotify audio version has a much shorter intro and the YouTube version has none at all.
I was only vaguely aware of Pratt’s campaign until you posted your first video about him. Now I’m intrigued—can’t get enough of his content. Keep up the good work trying to open liberals’ minds!
I’m afraid Los Angelenos are in a suicidal empathy death spiral. Even though Democrats never do anything, they slogan the right things to pull the puppet strings of the virtue signalers.
If I were in LA, I would vote for him after reading about him, watching your interview and knowing who he is running against. We really need to change how we deal with the homeless problem in a way that it is clear many Democrats (Bass and Raman among them) are not prepared to do. That said, I appreciate that both Laurie in SF and Mahan in SJ are making real strides dealing with the homeless and “get it” in a way that Bass and Raman don’t.
That said, I was really bothered by one sentence of yours: “a fire destroyed nearly 7,000 structures because of city mismanagement”. I think there are legitimate criticisms of the city (and the state) for fire mismanagement but this statement is completely unfair.
Among the reasons for the fire’s devastation were the Santa Ana winds, which include extremely fast fires with very long-range embers, years of drought and increasingly “hot” fires tied to climate change, dense development in the wildland-urban interface, steep canyon geography that funnels wind and accelerate fire spread, and decades of political and public unwillingness to deal with the problem of such development. And, obviously, homeowners who had unhardened houses and properties didn’t help the situation at all. (Pratt in your interview acted like the winds weren’t that bad in the Palisades as opposed to Altadena, but all the evidence I have seen is that they were severe winds there – 60-80 mph gusts - though it was somewhat worse in Altadena .
Legit criticisms are or might be: while the empty reservoir was for maintenance, there didn’t seem to be any planning if a fire developed in that area; given the wildland-urban interface, there clearly wasn’t adequate fire-mitigation strategies employed (which was mostly the State of California’s fault, but LA certainly played a roll); there may be very legitimate criticisms – though I haven’t read enough to know the exact extent – of L.A. planning and coordination during the event. I will believe you, though, on these failures. But this is a very long way from “a fire destroyed nearly 7,000 structures because of city mismanagement ”.
Point taken. I was aiming for brevity, but the result was a sentence that was too absolute. The causes of the fire were complex, and more is being discovered all the time, including major cover-ups on the part of the city. What I should have said is that "city failures made a catastrophic situation significantly worse than it needed to be." Thanks for the check. I have issued a correction in the post.
As for the wind, it's a point of contention and there may be a timeline issue there. I think Pratt is saying that the winds were not especially strong when he first noticed the fire around 10am. I've talked to other people who were in the area that day and there are conflicting reports.
Addendum regarding the wind. People I know in Pacific Palisades are saying this sounds exactly right.
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/2052588315828994148
Ok, I buy the timeline issue. I thought he was saying it was never more than 40 mph the entire time. I am looking forward to Vigliotti’s book.
You might want to listen to Mike Pesca’s interview with CBS national news correspondent Jonathan Vigllioti who is based in LA and has just published a book about the utter malfeasance and incompetence surrounding the Palisades fire. After hearing what he had to say, I think “mismanagement” is 100% the proper framing
That well be - but my contention is that there are other contributing causes that have nothing to do with the LA Mayor’s office. Both can be true - which is my point.
As a 30 year Angeleno who is (I think) politically quite similar to you Meghan, I am excited to vote for Spencer Pratt. I didn't follow his reality tv days, but who wasn't saying dumb stuff in 2008? I'm most excited that he is the first candidate in my memory who is calling out the rampant, undeniable theft of our tax dollars. Billions have been allocated to solve the problems that have only grown worse every year. He has a good command of the issues, and has common sense, legally sound solutions to problems. I believe he will require accountability for those who we entrust with our tax money. I hope everyone remembers that they can simply lie to their lefty friends and say they voted for Bass or Ramen if a Pratt vote will impact their social life.