Archive.fm

Santa Barbara Talks with Josh Molina

Santa Barbara Talks: Josh Molina and Daraka Larimore-Hall Talk Mike Jordan Podcast

Four days after Josh Molina talked about the Democratic Party's snub of Santa Barbara City Councilman Mike Jordan in his re-election campaign, Daraka Larimore-Hall comes on the show to talk about the endorsement process and explain the reasons why Jordan didn't have support. He says it was about more than just rent control. Larimore-Hall also criticizes Molina for his podcast comments and says he doesn't have the full story. Molina and Larimore-Hall clash over why the party didn't endorse Jordan, journalism, and Molina's coverage. Molina defends journalism, in this wide-ranging, at times, heated conversation. Please hit subscribe on YouTube and visit santabarbaratalks.com Josh Molina is a journalist and podcast who creates dynamic conversations on topics of housing, education, transportation, politics, culture and business and much more.

Duration:
1h 2m
Broadcast on:
29 Jul 2024
Audio Format:
mp3
[ Silence ] >> Welcome to Santa Barbara Talks with Josh Molina. And this is a bit of a special bonus episode that I was not planning. But I did receive a text message from the man you were looking at, Dr. Draca Laramor Hall, about something I recently podcasted about, and something related to the upcoming election. So I guess we're going to talk about it and hash it out. And Draca wants to clear the air. And I guess we're going to have a good conversation about what's going on. Draca, welcome to the show. >> Hey, thanks. And thanks for letting me on for a little write of reply here. >> Yeah, no, it's my pleasure. I always enjoy talking to you. So let's hash it out here. Just by way of background. So I did a podcast, sort of just Josh kind of recapping some local issues. And one of them was what happened with Michael Jordan. And Michael Jordan did not get an endorsement. Technically, there was no motion to consider endorsing him. And so I talked about that. And I basically said that if the issue was simply rent control, that- >> You said it was. >> If the issue is simply rent control. >> There was no if, Josh, come on. There was no if, that's the point. >> I'm summarizing. >> I wouldn't be on the show right now if you had just spun a hypothetical. >> Well, I'm not spinning a hypothetical. I'm trying to summarize that I said if the issue was rent control, then Jordan is about much more than one issue. And how is it that a guy like Jordan, who is a Democrat, can't get into worst if rent control is the issue. And so that's basically what I said. And so Draca, you're here to kind of clear the air. >> Yeah. >> So what's the issue here? What's going on from your perspective? >> Well, so every few months or so you text me and you'll with like, "Hey, I heard X, Y, and Z happened on the central committee." And often it's like, you know, I heard that there was, you know, a ruckus or people got mad or you got mad or whatever. And then I had to like say what really happened. And that happened again. Like recently you texted me and we're like, "Hey, I heard that you berated Michael Jordan about you meeting me about rent control." And then he didn't get endorsed because of rent control. And I said, "I berated no one." And there were a lot of issues that were brought up. Concerns about Michael Jordan's voting record and policies, his answers to our questions in the questionnaire that were brought up in discussion for reasons that it didn't make sense to, you know, endorse him or do you like take up the question at this time? And so here I am after like a few months ago coming on because to talk about among other things, how, you know, you thought it was strange or problematic that the Democratic Party endorsed an incumbent without like waiting and taking a look at a challenger. So it's like this whiplash effect of it really seems like you've got a narrative that you'll stick to no matter what I tell you and you ask me for factual to fact check things and really no matter what the situation is. If the candidate is Doss Williams who votes with us and votes on our values and votes for our platform all the time, but that was weird because there was like another guy running. But then when we take a look at an incumbent and we say, "Here's someone who is not just against rent cap, rent control, rent stabilization is also a bad actor on all kinds of tenant protections issues and on top of it voted against the project labor agreements," you know, it's adding up and he didn't make a case for himself for why he should carry the endorsement in the race enough for us to take it up at this point. As you pointed out, it wasn't a definitive vote that we would never endorse him, but it was a nobody spoke in favor of taking it up at this time. And you don't have that kind of unanimity or not unanimity, but you don't have that kind of super, super majority based on one issue. And these are all things I explained to you. But it didn't matter. You were like, it was about rent control and then you wanted to sort of tell us why it shouldn't, we shouldn't use that as a key issue. And then talked about how if you were advising Michael Jordan, you would tell him he should support rent control and work with both sides, which he isn't doing, which didn't help him get our endorsement. I mean, it's just like you answered your own question, hypothetical question, which I already told you wasn't actually the fact, but none of that meant anything. So it's just, you want to talk about frustrating. Like it, you talked about being frustrated that we didn't endorse Michael Jordan, but it's really frustrating to have this situation where sort of no matter what we do. We're, we're, we're up to something or not being nice enough to someone or something. Do you, does that make sense, Josh? Well, it doesn't, there's two issues here. Okay. There's the Josh Daraka issue. And then there's the central committee Jordan endorsement issue. Okay. So, and they are blended, right? Because, because you and I talk, I reach out to you. And, you know, one of the things I think we should like establish as a basis is I reach out to you. And I think you see it as maybe sometimes like defending yourself against some latest, you know, thing that I've heard. But there's nothing like that in it. I reach out to you. Right. Well, I reach out to you though. And I don't know that you fully like appreciate this or acknowledge it. In the context of having a lot of, you know, respect for the fact that you are kind of an elder on that party. You've been around for 20 years. And I want to check in with you on what I'm hearing. So, let's, let's like establish that. It isn't like I'm over here thinking, let me needle Doraka with the latest accusation that people are saying he's berating individuals in the meeting. That's not the intent. The intent is, I get a lot, people tell me a lot of things. You know, this one I'm going to check in with on Doraka. Okay. So, let's establish that. So, there's no like intent to go out there and like make Doraka look like a bad central committee member. That being said, I don't, I never thought that. That being said, Jordan. Okay. I'll, I'll tell you exactly what Mike Jordan said. And he told me this on the record. And I think the, the thing you have to understand, as a journalist, people talk to me and then we'll look you in the eye and say they didn't talk to me. That's a normal thing. And I know that, as a, as a 20 year veteran of Santa Barbara politics, I know that. And I also have a pretty good sense of who they are. And I have a pretty good sense of what they're saying. Cause I've been at it a long time and it's a lot of the same people. So, yeah. So, we can mutually, we can mutually stipulate that. Sure. Okay. Doraka Laramore Hall is in quotes framed a question that structured rent control as something they feel is essential and I stood in the way of that. More like berated. I didn't make up the word berated, Doraka. And why would the Dems endorse anyone who stood in the way of that? I answered with the reasons I could not support it. Doraka Laramore Hall asked a clarifying question to confirm. I would not support it. I confirmed someone else continued the question for five minutes by offering an anecdotal story on tenant abuses and lack of rent, rent control. I have the same answer. I'm up. Okay. That's from Mike Jordan. Okay. So Mike Jordan, if Mike Jordan, who's trying to seek an endorsement, tells me that Doraka Laramore Hall berated him. That's information that is in my head, which is why I reached out to you. You said, no, this never happened. And I never said in my podcast that you berated him. I was not a thing. I never said that. All I said was, you know, how can a moderate, why can't a moderate Democrat like Mike Jordan, who's endorsed by the way by a whole bunch of dams up the ticket? Why can't he get the damn party endorsement? That's basically what I said. And I think you didn't ask the, but I'm talking about your podcast. You didn't ask that question. You answered that question. You said it was rent control based on what? Based on a text from Mike Jordan about his interpretation of the question and answer period. That's not where the decision is made or where the discussion happens as I explained. And in the discussion, people brought up multiple issues. Again, as I explained to you, and that flew out the window because you wanted to talk about berating. You wanted to criticize the decision to not endorse him based on one issue. Now two things. One is you really, really soft peddled how important rent control and or rent cap is, right? Because what's really frustrating is the absolute crisis that we have and housing in this community. What kinds of absolutely horrible sacrifices people have to make in order to make rent. And, and, and then the total vulnerability that they have from eviction when a landlord decides that, you know, making thousands and thousands of dollars on their backs isn't enough. And, and it's why, you know, when you, I know you support like progressive reform on rent control or rent stabilization and protecting tenants. I know you get that. But you have this tendency as a journalist, right? To like, I've got to be buddies with the people on the other side. And then like project out that everybody should be buddies with people on the other side. And so that's how we get an article like your one about the, the bath issue where, you know, there's five quotes from landlords, none from tenants. And just like one from the tenants union. And again, I don't think that's because you are on the side of the landlords. I think it's because your bias is in order for me to be for tenants. I've got to really show that I'm really extra fair and nice to the, to the landlords. And then you projected that onto this, the issue with Michael Jordan and you're, you're soliloquy, right? That you just projected that nobody's ever talked to Michael and his, his only sin is that he talks to the, the property owners and the landlords and so forth. But people have been talking to him and pushing him and asking him for, yeah, some kind of leadership and he gives us, you know, econ 101 stuff like mythology about, about rent control. So, and so there's pushback and people are tired of it. But again, this is somebody who's like on worker protections on a range of issues, like just hasn't, hasn't answered the question of like why we should put him on the ticket. Now you, again, because this comes up when we do endorse incumbents and it comes up when we don't endorse incumbents and so forth. As I've said a million times, the, the committee looks at every race in the context of that race. So again, you were sort of answering your own question. He does, he, he, he has an opponent that we don't know that much about. It's just pulled papers. He has a lot of support. He probably, but we're like, he has a good chance of winning all of those reasons. So then why wouldn't the Democratic Party endorse him? Well, maybe it's exactly like measuring the stakes versus how much this person is a champion on our issues. Maybe Josh, maybe that's something that the committee also like took into account, but you, you just, you, you had to make the story that there was one issue that we made a decision on. Um, and like it just didn't matter. Giving you any evidence to the contrary. And you believe someone, you believe someone who literally was not part of the discussion. A couple of things. I don't think it's going to be productive to hear your analysis of what journalism should be. Right. You, you, you, you make a living off of giving an analysis of what politics should be. Why, why, why can't I give an analysis of what, of what journalism should be journalism should, should include fact checking and it should include like a real rigorous analysis of like what's going on and not just picking and choosing, uh, quotes from people and so forth in order to tell a story you've already decided on. What you're saying, you know, you're just trying to establish a narrative, which is not true. What's narrative is not true. What have I said that's not? You, you, what you were doing, which is, uh, longstanding criticism of you is that you try to summarize the intents of other people and then comment on it. Tell me when I did that. You're assuming the intent of the journey. You just went through a whole thing about, Oh, when you do this, when you cover this issue, you try to do that. I actually literally said, I don't think that your intent, I, I've stipulated, I think you are on the right side of the issue and I don't think your intent is to harm the cause of rent control. I, I said that explicitly, Josh. And then I talked about how, how, when you write it, you, for, for a reader, you saturate with one side over the other. And I think that's not true. This is a, this is a journalism conversation that I'm not too sure reader or viewers care too much about that. I think you're wrong. You don't think we just care that five different landlords get a chance to talk about how them mistreating, uh, tenants is like actually a mistreatment of them or whatever the health of the talk to stuff they were talking about. And you don't talk to, you do not talk to a single tenant who's suffering from their consequences. And then you're like, oh, don't lecture me about journalism. All right. The thing is, you're, you're not accurate. Here's, here's the thing. Just take a breath. You say things and you say them confidently and you say them as an intellectual and you say them with academic expertise and intent. But what you just said is not true. It is true, Josh. It is not true. What is it? It's not true. Let me talk. Then tell me what I said that was not true. You're doing exactly what people criticize you for, which is being abrasive and interrupting. What I'm telling you is there are not five different landlords quoted in that story. One, two, journalism is an art. It's not a science. It is not an academic paper. It is not a research paper. We are not trying to do testing and then testing again and then come to some conclusion. That is a big thing that you need to grasp. Did you talk to a tenant? You're doing it again. What did you talk to a tenant? What am I doing? I'm asking you a factual question. And then you answer in the previous questions. You asked you talk to a tenant and did you talk to more than two landlords? So if I got the five wrong, I'll, I'll retract that. Okay. I'm not going to be able to answer your questions if you keep interrupting me. So please. Journalism is an art. That story is the city prosecutor saying we're going to go after this property manager. That's what the story is. I wrote the story. I talked to the property manager. I went to the apartment building. I tried to talk to people. Couldn't find anyone. I talked to the legal aid. I talked to the tenants associate. I quoted Stan Lee's Ancom. And it's a story. It's a story. It's what journalism is. Some days journalism stories are like that. Other times stories are more in depth. It depends on a variety of factors. And you know, as much as anyone, the pressures of the news business. You know journalists have a lot to do with not a lot of support in a short amount of time. So when I'm saying, when you say I quoted five landlords, that is not true. The only landlord I quoted in that story was whoever is the landlord for that building, that property. So I think what you're trying to do is you're upset about the podcast that I did talking about Mike Jordan. And you want to sort of make it about me, which is fine. I don't mind that. If I put myself out there. Josh, can I respond now? Is that okay? Sure. It's up to you. It's your show. No, go ahead. I just wanted to be able to clear up what you said. Yeah, but okay. But you were just starting down the road of telling me what my motivations were and that they're emotional and I'm upset. And I've just wanted to stop you because it's really insulting. I never said that. There was emotion. You said it's because I'm upset. Okay. Anyway, Josh, the point is that as I stipulated and said, I may have been wrong about the number of landlords, but the landlords were quoted and a tenant was not. And that's not good. That's not good journalism. I don't think. Number two, the point here is that I'm not a. I'm upset with something you said and I'm not upset in a. Out of control emotional way. I'm upset in a way as a citizen as someone who's who you. That's not good. And then you yourself. Went on a big long monologue. About a decision. Completely incorrectly characterizing that decision. So I'm. My beef is with you and the words that you said. And you just. You don't seem to want to be accountable for that. And that's where the journalism thing always comes up between us, Josh, because I try to hold you accountable for words that you write or you say. And you're like, Hey, that's academic shit. Stop academicking me in journalism. We just tell stories. And then you will admit like how. You didn't have a tenant and you still haven't like. Reckoned with this point that you character, you did affirmatively characterize the decision we made about Michael Jordan about being about rent control. And you don't have any evidence of that and you have a witness to the discussion saying it was not just about rent control. So that's my that that's why I am upset. I understand. But the thing that is upsetting is I don't have no problem. People criticize journalists all the time. People on the right do people on the left do. It's a very tough position for journalists to be in. There's been an erosion in media literacy. And it's easy to attack meet the media when stories are written in ways that people don't like. And we see this from everybody. Okay, so that is not an issue for me. I'm going to ask you a question, Draca. If I find out that the city prosecutor has filed a felony charge against the property owner. And it's, I don't know, Tuesday on a, you know, one o'clock. Do you think it's better to not do that story that day? Or is it better to jump on that story and do that story as quickly as you can with deadlines to get as much information as you can and publish it because a reporter believes, you know what? It's really important to tell readers that this happened. That the city prosecutor thinks this is bad enough to file these charges. Yeah. That's a really easy answer question answer actually. Yes. Yes. You definitely should delay that a day to make sure that the people being evicted have a voice in the story and that you're getting their perspective in it. Because especially an issue like this is not one that absolutely has to be out the minute that you find out about it or the minute that it's filed. And especially in a news environment in which you don't have like a ton of competition for making, you know, breaking news. Like what it is is you're one of the few sources that people can read to learn more about an issue. Like yes, you should absolutely have waited a few hours so that you could have tenants in the story. Yeah. Oh, that's simple. Well, I would, I think we should move on. I think. Okay. So I want to talk about that. Hold on. I disagree with you. Right. I think that's a fundamental point. Journalism news training is to get the story now. How's it going, Josh? How is the media? How is it going with this great media strategy and how you guys talk about it? Do not use conservative talking points for why the media is failing. That's exactly what you're doing. Oh, no. It's not a conservative talking point. It is. The reason the media is struggling, Garaka, is because of a lack of advertising. Okay. I agree. Josh, I've also agreed with that. But don't go away. I'm not talking about why the media is struggling, Josh. You're just making things up and putting it in my mouth. You just asked me. I'm saying, again, I'm talking about how's it working for the country? How's it working for people's access to real information? How, after years of both citing everything, like making sure that narrative and story replace fact and education, how is decades of, of like, you know, snipey sound bites? Let's find a Democrat will be snipey and then a Republican will be snipey. How is decades and decades of that kind of style of reporting? How is that played out in our democracy and in our society? I think it's been bad. And we agree that there's a political economy behind that. Exactly because newsrooms have been defunded and so forth. And no one on the left disputes any of that, Josh. What we're talking about is you still have a responsibility for reporting in a way that uplifts the voice of people who have less of it, like evicted tenants, at least to the same level as a landlord. It's a simple request. It's a simple request. Just as just as when you talk about the issue of rent control and why a political organization might put that to the forefront of their priorities for endorsing someone that it's not that like, Josh, maybe, maybe in order to get to a point where, like, there's a compromise and we're starting to talk about numbers, like what percent the rent cap is and so forth. In order to do that, we have to defend the concept of rent control, rent stabilization, and actual policy to limit rates and rents. And if we, there's a Democrat running who says, no, we shouldn't do any of those things and all we can do to deal with housing is like little bits of supply and we shouldn't do anything about rents and people come to them and they lobby them and they still come back and say that's the same thing, then, and they're the same with fundamental labor rights and labor security issues on public projects. But how many times does someone just say, no, I'm keeping that off the table before there are political consequences? That's a question you could have been asking and an interesting discussion to have. But you framed it all as the party, like, just has one issue and decided on Michael Jordan and never talked to him and why don't people just talk to him? And, like, that's just not, that's not an accurate description of what's been going on. I think we could probably spend hours and hours trying to tell each other what is accurate and what isn't because I disagree with how you characterized what I said. I disagree with your analysis of journalism and what should be done. And I just don't think it's going to be productive, right? Like, obviously, there is no journalist in this town who works harder than I do to talk to the afflicted, who works harder to elevate those voices. And I have done that for more than 20 years. What you're doing is unfortunate. You're picking apart one thing and saying, why didn't this happen? And using that as some sort of, like, effort to erode credibility in the context of what I say about Mike Jordan. And I don't think that's fair. And I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what journalism is and how you approach a story. Can we then just talk about your Michael Jordan, the monologue about that then? Like, I get it. It's fine. It is totally fine. But I just want to just clarify that on some days, journalists, they find people to talk to. And other days, they don't. And sometimes people don't want to talk to journalists. And sometimes they don't want to go on the record. And sometimes they do. And sometimes organizers who are leading groups want to talk and others, it's complex and it's an art. And it's unfair for you to suggest that you have some expertise on how a journalist approaches a situation when it's much more complicated than that. That's fine. And then you have some expertise on political organizing and endorsements that you were displaying the other day. Well, that's it. That's a progressive, sarcastic statement. Of course it was, Josh, because you're, you're. Oh, okay. You can ditch it out, but you can't take it. Can we talk about that? Again, you're doing it again. And these are the things. What am I doing? You are. You're accusing me of being defensive when your entire schtick is defensiveness. Right. So let's start. Let's talk about Mike Jordan. Yeah. Why can't Mike Jordan get an endorsement? You say it's not just rent control. It's he didn't. Goed it against a bunch of political priorities that the committee and the party has. That's why. Right. And, and, and there wasn't anybody there, like making a strong case for him. And, you know, I think maybe there's some stories there to find out why that is. Why, why, why couldn't an incumbent just have more like camaraderie support. Kind of mojo around them. Well, I mean, clearly Mike Jordan has taken votes. Right. That have been counter to probably many of the party's principles. I know I was in the room. He voted against a SEIU pay increase. I remember that. It was like. Three percent or something. You know, he said it was not a good budget time. Yeah. So that's why. To bat for the two 15 bath street people. And then the, I think I said this on the show. I know I've said it somewhere. Maybe Jerry's show. And then. The realtor's talked to him. The owners of the, the building talked to him. And all of a sudden he stepped back. Right. Yeah. I have no point is. So you're answering your question. But my whole point, and this is my question for you, Drog, is there is no doubt that. And you and I both grew up poor as renters. So we, we see eye to eye on this thing. Okay. There's no doubt that. If you can't afford to pay rent and you have to move around and, you know, you're struggling. And if you're a kid in that household. I mean, you're starting at a huge deficit from all these other people that you have to compete against. It's a, it's a systemic racism. It's systemic classism. And you and I both know that is devastating. And so many kids grow up like that in this community. My question for you though is, is, are there other things that Mike Jordan. Has been supportive of in the context of being for housing and like sort of housing development perspectives where the, the party could have a nuanced conversation. On whether to endorse it. For example, if a strong Republican were in the race. Obviously you'd want to endorse Mike Jordan because he would be better than that person. Is there a strong Republican in the race? I don't think so. I don't know. Right. But there could, in theory, there, there could be. Yeah. Which is exactly why we didn't take up the race. You decided not to even consider endorsing with the idea that maybe. Right. Because right now we have one candidate asking for our endorsement. He voted against a bunch of things that are important to us. He hasn't done what you say you would advise him to do. Which is like, you know, offer something else that would still get us close. He hasn't done anything like that. And so he didn't get an endorsement. Like he didn't like motivate people to take it up. And this is analogous to what happened with Stuart Kasdan. Where there was a conversation. There wasn't a vote to support him. He came. I mean, it's, it's analogous in that it's exactly the same process. I don't want to compare the two things. Overly, because as I said, every race and every context is different. But this is like exactly what frustrates me, Josh, is that like you just said. All a bunch of perfectly reasonable. Like explanations for why this happened. But when you do your editorializing, you just. Filled in the blanks with a bunch of stuff that I explicitly said wasn't the case. Well, I don't want to get into the new. You're like, I saw him do a bunch of bad votes. Yeah. So did we. I don't want to get a nuance of our text messages. Cause they're, I believe between you and I, but you never said P.L.A. when we talked. You said they were. I didn't list them out. I just said there were other issues and that it was not just about rent control. And I said that over and over again, didn't I? You did say that, but you did not. So that's, that's why I'm, that, that's my beef, Josh. Is that you asked me what happened in a conversation? You asked me what happened in a discussion. I answered your question and then you talked to someone who was not in that discussion. And you ran with his interpretation. And, and not for nothing. It was the interpretation you started our conversation with. You're like, Hey, is it true that it was just about rent control? I said, no, then you were like, it's just about rent control. And I don't get why that's okay. If, if, if you had other evidence from other witnesses, that would be one thing, but you're, you're relying on someone who wasn't fair. Well, obviously I talked to more people than Michael Jordan. And in fact, I, if you noticed speaking to go to your point of waiting before I did my podcast a couple days have passed before, because I wanted to try to do more research and figure it out. And I think that's something you have to figure out. I know you think there's two people on the board that I talked to, right? And that you've got to protect that, right? That's a fundamental thing about journalism is, you know, we don't reveal our sources because people need to be able to reveal, be able to talk to the media without fear of reprisal. Can we talk about this? Wait, wait, wait, wait. I want to, I want to talk about this. Can we talk about this issue? Yes, because you talk about these people like it's deep throat, right? And that there could be reprisals. When we're talking about an all volunteer political organization in which, by the way, all of our votes are public by our own rules. Any vote we take, our name is attached to it. We don't have a secret ballot in which we, we simply ask like, press and candidates to leave the room while we have discussion, so we can have like a more free flowing one. But everyone knows there that nothing anybody says is secret. And we're all just like volunteers on a board. And so when actually, when you are like, I have a bunch of sources, but they talk to me off the record and anonymously, you're not protecting someone that like is going to go to Gulag if they, if people find out that they've been talking to you, Josh. What you're really doing actually is like letting people that are the equivalent of, of, you know, anonymous internet trolls, just like say whatever they want. And then you come and chase it down to me because you know I will go on the record and talk about it. And that's, you know, so to me, if you're on the board of the Democratic Party, and you talk to a reporter a bunch, but always anonymously and off the record. That's just like really sad and weird. And it's really sad and weird that that's like, that you think of that as like the source that you have to protect. It's just weird. It's like, if people is like people on a PTA board and you talk to people, but they're like, I'm not going to like give my name on it because then people could hold me accountable for the things I say. It's just all of that. But you understand the concept of why a journalist would give some of the source anonymity, right? I get, I totally understand it. And I also think that it gets abused at a level like this. This is just people that are not willing to put their name next to political statements when that's what we're elected to do by our membership. And that's just, it's just silly. Like somebody breaking ranks with the army or a religious organization or a cult or a major corporation or something like that. I will would absolutely go to the mat and walk the picket line to free you from jail for not revealing your sources and all of that. But this isn't that. And do you understand that that decision about what is worth protecting and what isn't is an art. It's not a science. So there is no hard line for sure, really depends on. So, for example, theoretically, it could be a political board. And if that person has fear of reprisal or retribution by an individual on that board in a way that's going to hurt them politically in the future. I might feel like, you know, that's worth it. But also, I'm probably going to be skeptical of what they're saying and not print everything that they say. That's a decision a journalist has to make because you have to weigh what is the greater good of getting the information out versus outing that person. And those are considerations that have to be made. I only bring that up to rocket because I just, I don't want you to think that I only talk to you and Mike Jordan. Okay. And I don't think that I know that it's not the case. Okay. And so, yeah, go ahead. So, so is Mike Jordan have a chance to get endorsed again. I mean, is, can this come up in a future? I don't know. And I can't speak to, I can't speak for, you know, 30 plus people. Right. All I can do is like, you asked me what happened at a meeting. I'm always happy to tell you, at least like my perspective on what happened at a meeting and understand that other people can have perspectives, but there's some things that are just like facts. And the fact is that more than rent control was brought up in the discussion and people brought more than rent control as concerns. And that's what I told you. And we keep walking around the issue. Why is it like what was the counter evidence or why is it that even though I told you that you just ran with the story that it was just about one issue. Would I read to you for Mike Jordan at the beginning? Do you dispute anything that you told me? Well, I mean, I think that, I mean, not factually no, except that, like, I think the berating is just like hilarious and rich, like, he got asked a question and a follow up question and he's like, oh, they berated me, but whatever. That's obviously a subjective thing. Point is, yeah, he, he was asked a question. He answered it. He was talking about why he, you know, doesn't support a rent cap and why, you know, he. voted against it and has blocked it. And I asked him for clarification to make sure that's exactly what he was the reason he gave you. You know, that it will, it had a deuterious effect on maintenance, you know, supply. It's the old, the same chamber of commerce. Like, again, like what you learn in first year econ. That's been widely disputed by actual studies. And anyway, like people aren't pushing for rent control as a solution to the problem of supply. Like, you can build like a ton of more units and have 20% of them be affordable. And that's not going to help the, you know, majority of citizens and majority of residents in the city of Santa Barbara, who are renters now. And so, you know, it's, it, it has been refuted, the tenants union has given him plenty of information about why that is actually not true. It's like, no, this isn't the first round. So yeah, he was given an opportunity to maybe change his mind and he didn't. So, so what other thing Mike told me, and this is all on the record, he said. In my questionnaire, I answered all her questions and noted endorsements from Slough Carbajal, Greg Hart, Laura caps, Megan Harmon, Eric Friedman, Sierra Club. Blah, blah, blah. Does it like the fact that, or let me ask you the question this way. Those are heavyweights in the Democratic Party. And then you have the central committee who doesn't think that they should be that he should be endorsed for rent control and other issues PLA. SEIU votes, etc. So, well, how is a voter supposed to like reconcile like, who should I vote for here? Because all these people are strong dams. The damn party doesn't like him. Is this just a couple of, you know, well, you know, how do you reconcile that? It's a, how do I reconcile it? What's the need, exactly the need for reconciliation because there's, it's, it's a South County is heavily Democratic and there's lots of races. There's races that pit Democrats versus Democrats and cases where people get an endorsement from this politician or that politician, but not the party. I mean, I don't, it's, this is not unusual at all. Like what's unusual in general is when the party doesn't endorse an incumbent. Like that's most usually we do, but it's not common for it has happened. It's happened on the city, this city council, but it's really, it's also not common for a Democrat to be like so consistently bad on core issues. So it's a real thing. The party, for example, is endorsing solid carbahol. Does that happen? I'm assuming it has. The party, the county party doesn't endorse in federal races, but the California Democratic party is endorsing him. Okay. So that's a, that's a different process. So it would not come to the, the local central committee. No, our, our, our responsibility is from county down, essentially. Do you get annoyed that some of these electeds who are in these positions of power are endorsing a guy like Mike Jordan who clearly doesn't support rent control? I mean, is that a conflict among among you? I'll just ask you. Me? No, I mean, no, no, no, I mean, it's, like, there are a, for all of the reasons that you, you just described, right? This is a case of somebody who doesn't have a, certainly doesn't have a Democratic opponent, who's better on the issues at this point. And so that's a very different kind of race to consider. But look, the, the, the philosophy of the local party in terms of endorsements, at least for the last couple of decades has been that the party's endorsement has to mean something. It has to be a signal to voters that candidate is the most aligned viable, the most like aligned with our values and viable in a race. And if it just is an automatic, you know, process, it's just a rubber stamp. And no matter what you do in office, you get it, then it doesn't fill that function. And so, a group of people who are elected by Democrats on the ballot, right, are responsible for making the determination case by case, if, if the candidate, like gets endorsement. All of the different things, Josh, that you've raised, like, who's the opponent is it a Republican, how close are we to losing, what kind of support do they have from other elected like those are all exactly the kinds of factors that get discussed. And so yeah, as you saw with like the Stuart Kasden case, that was a case where somebody like did it a little better and I came to us with some better ideas and putting forth more of a commitment and was able to like get people off of the fence, as they had been on the fence So that happens. And as we see right now in the East side district right twice in a row, you can see that you can lose the party support, if you're going to side with landlords rather than renters. If like you're just going to be skeptical and push back against like all the social justice reforms that, that are coming from social movements in the community, etc. So I just do. I just want to get back to you still not see why it's a problem from my perspective to have like no matter what I say happened at a meeting that like the facts are going to be squeezed into like an narrative. Well, I think we both bear something to improve upon here. Okay. I think one is, I could have said. By the way, Dracula or more Hall, I talked to him said, it's not just rent control. It's other things. Period. I could have said that. I think you right could do a better job of being specific. When I reach out to you, just say, Hey, Josh, those other things were this, this and this. And I would still do the same podcast. I would still and I'll do this right now and say. So Mike Jordan doesn't want to support rent control. You're going to have the votes on to support rank control because, you know, probably Wendy's an area is going to win. Right. So you still want Mike on that on that city council because he's still a Democrat. He's still going to vote for Democratic policies. Most of the time, he's not going to support rent control right now because he did he. Who knows why because those other guys gotten his his ear, but it still stands that. You know, if so, if Mike Jordan's good enough for Sloot Carbajol and Greg Hart and Laura caps and Eric Friedman, the Sierra Club and others. Why is he not? Why can't the party see the nuance to say, you know. He's not he's got issues with rent control. Let's work on him. Let's endorse him and work on him. So that is why is the word nuance to you only mean. Like us endorsing him regardless of what he does. Why is I don't understand why that's nuance. But in fact. Not following through and endorsing him after he's opposed our issues a bunch of times, but not going out and getting a candidate to run against him. And holding off and on the decision. Like that doesn't seem nuanced to you. Obviously the party could be much stronger against him if they really did not want him to get reelected. Clearly nuance. That sounds like nuance. No, you're saying is endorsing him now, even though with our endorsement before he was like, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad on issues, you're saying that nuance means endorsing him anyway and then what. Then then he will come on board because we endorsed him, even though we did it once before and he didn't. I don't know, but I know that that if you endorse him and you, you know, he's you're in the room and you have that meeting with him and you say, look, we, we do not like the fact that you did this. And we want you to support rent control by the time this vote comes. Right. So that may be you're giving up too much leverage, but I think this idea of making them sweat. Like, Oh, we're not going to do it today, but maybe we'll do it in August. I mean, I think that is like, you know, something worth exploring as to whether that's the best approach. And by the way, you do not. Wait a minute. I don't understand. What are you saying? That's a bad approach or a good approach. Making him sweat. So last Monday, there was no effort to endorse him. No one was willing to take it up. And I feel as though if you're doing that, just to make him sweat, just to make him nervous, just to say, Hey, you don't have our support, but you might be able to get it if you change your mind. You know, in August, either you like the guy or you don't, right? Just endorse him or don't endorse him. Just call it up and say we don't endorse you and stand by it. If he's such a bad Democrat who's against rent control, don't endorse him. Move on. But when you do this thing, it's like it sends this mixed message. It's like, is he good enough or is he not? And by the way, what you're saying we should have done is endorsed him, but said we're endorsing you, even though you voted against us, please stop voting against us. That's what you're offering is like what we should have done and that would have been more nuanced. Sorry, I'm really lost. Or just don't endorse him. Like he's either good enough for the party or he's not, but if you make him sweat through August to decide. Okay, this is, that's all. Nobody. I never said anything about making him sweat or anything. I said that we, we, nobody, we didn't take up the endorsement. We didn't do it. It's not a totally closed door to endorsing in that race. That doesn't mean we're expecting him to. You're the one that made the connection to. Like, I don't. Is it a, let me ask you, you're criticizing. We, we, you're, is it a tactic or is it a strategy? Yeah, it's a tactic or is it a strategy? What? In meeting in July to say he doesn't support rent control. He's took these other bad votes. He doesn't have an opponent. We don't have a lot to lose if we don't even bring it up tonight. Is that not a tactic strategy to say, so we're not going to do that. And so we'll see how he responds and we'll go from there. You're saying, you guys walk into that room, you know, all the people walk in that room. And it's all just like spontaneous. We've not decided that we're going to make it. Yes, definitely. There was not, wait, again, you, you, you mixed up the tenses there. Are you, are you asking me if there was discussion before you realize we didn't talk like that in that academic arrogance that you just further make people not like you. I have no idea. I really did know that I was signing up for like a character analysis. Do you know many times you've mixed up tenses in this conversation and I have not called you on it. I wasn't calling you on it. I literally didn't understand what you said, Josh, because it seemed hypothetical and this is maddening. I'm asking for clarification. Are you asking what are you asking? What are you asking? What are you asking? If Mike Jordan against rank control. Yes. And he is taking votes against the PLA and other policy issues fundamental to the beliefs of the Democratic Party platform. Just don't endorse him. What is the point of deciding we're not going to consider endorsing him. So I just want to understand you, you made a big editorial about why it was a mistake not to endorse him and we should have endorsed him. And you just told me that we should have endorsed him, but then talk to him afterwards. And now you're saying we also shouldn't have just not endorsed him with a possibility of endorsing in that race him or somebody else. All three all thing. You're just mad again. You're all drunk up. All things are true. I believe Josh Molina believes the party should endorse Mike Jordan. Okay. Because he is a Democrat for the most part who is who is a good Democrat. He's a moderate Democrat. And there may be some value in the fact that he has the ear of some of these property owners and landlords to have negotiation with them in a way that maybe could pay off maybe. But he hasn't in the four years. He hasn't in the four years he's been in. He's done the opposite. As you just said, he'd be like, Oh yeah, this is good. Every time, but then I want to talk. My Jordan has not supported housing policy. He's not supported. Not renter, not renter protections. Of course he supports building housing. Nobody said that you're changing the subject. No, Josh, you just gave an example about how talking to the, the, the housing industry just like moved him after he was for tenants. That's the kind of thing that will lose you an endorsement. That's why they don't endorse it. Oh, God. Yeah. Okay. We didn't. But I'm sorry that we did it in a way that like you want us to endorse him, but we didn't endorse him, but we didn't endorse not endorse him in the right way. And that's weird to me. I don't understand where you're coming from. And it's not what you spent at half an hour or whatever, like going off on the Democratic Party about. So all I'm just, I'm exhausted at this point. And we've been around circles. I came here to say very simply, very simply. As I said to you in direct conversation, Michael Jordan. Was a light issue of concern his voting record on a range of issues. And that's why. Nobody moved to endorse in that district in this race. That's why, not just because of rent control. Number two, ring control is really important. And it's really bad that he hasn't supported it. And he's had plenty of opportunities to do what you said he should do. And maybe he will now. Maybe he won't, except to Michael Jordan. But all we can do is decide whether we're going to endorse him in this race. He didn't earn it because he has stopped protections for renters. And that's, we're in this for the policy. Now, the last thing I just want to say, like for the record and everything is that if in the future, you want to know about discussions on the central committee. And you want to talk to a bunch of people on the central committee and get their different opinions and so forth. Please do not lead if you'd like to know my opinion. Don't lead with something negative that someone said about me and ask me if it's true. I know you don't do it to needle me. I think you do it because you think it's like a bonding thing. It's not. It's actually really stressful and hurtful. I'm tired of having to just like routinely defend myself against whatever somebody will say anonymously anonymously about me. Because I'm a fucking volunteer community leader who just does this because he wants rent control and other good things for people in Santa Barbara. And it's just real. It is. It's just psychologically crappy to have this thing relationship in which, like, whatever your methodology is that it's like, hey, someone said, Doraka berated me. Let me see if that's true. It's just like, it's just so annoying. I hear what you're saying. I personally feel it's better to reach out to you than to not reach out to you in those situations. But I hear what you're saying. I think what you're saying is if someone like puts their name to it, by all means, I will respond to it. But if it's just this spurious little thing, Doraka yelled at me and looked at me weird and was berated me then too bad. I don't want to academically used the big words, you know, stuff like that. All the reasons, as you said, people don't like me. What a nice thing to hear in an interview. You know, this is why people don't like you, Doraka. You use them big words. I never said big words. It's the talking down. That's the thing people say, you know, and that's, you know, hey, let me just end on this one thing. You would acknowledge that Mike Jordan as an incumbent and Alejandro Gutierrez is an incumbent or two different situations and one is much worse than the other. From my credit party, rent control policy perspective. Hmm. Yeah, I mean, again, I don't speak on behalf of party Josh, and so if you want to ask me like in my opinion. I don't know, man, that's like dying by fire or ice. Like they both, they've both been disappointing in different ways. They both also had different levels of expectation. And also they represent districts that are different, as you said, one is far more progressive than the other. So you might expect a different kind of behavior. And I don't think that anybody expected to hold her to a higher standard because she's Latina than Mike Jordan is late. No, it's more about the district. For me personally, just because I've seen plenty of conservative Latin Latinx politicians in the state at this point. So no, but it's, it is about, you know, the, it is about the people who worked really hard and put their shoe leather out there to get her elected. It is about the which parts of the constituents here being listened to and those sorts of things. But look, it's, it's not. I think the bigger from a reporting perspective, or if you're just going to sort of comment on the situation, it's also significant that, you know, what, what kinds of challenges are jumping into the, to the race in those different districts. And we'll tell you a little bit about sort of the stakes and expectations and so forth. But I don't, the, like. There is nothing, no actual economics, no. Good policy reasons why any of the Democrats on the council have been so, you know, that have been against. Renter protections have the positions they do. They're like, none of it makes any sense. And whether it's Eric Freeman saying, Oh, I just haven't seen the data or, you know, so and so goes and talks to a landlord and, you know, sheds tears for them and none of it makes any sense. This is such an obvious crisis. We've got to be yes and to everything. We need to do things that are going to increase supply, and we need to do things that are going to bring down rents. And you know that, and I know that, and the Democratic Party is committed to that and trying to make it happen. And I think, you know, instead of like, I don't, you know, micromanaging how we should have not endorsed him. Like maybe just take take it, but the Democratic Party is policy forward and always will be. I'm not micromanaging how you do it. I'm just basically saying either my Jordan's a Democrat or he's not endorsed. No, but that's Josh, you know that's not true. Michael Jordan is a Democrat. He's a Democrat. Does he get the Democratic Party endorsement is a separate question as we've as we've established based on all of the parameters of the race. It is not, it is not our job to just look at someone's voter registration and say they're Democrat. They get our endorsement. You know that. I totally understand that's obviously there are plenty of Democrats who did not deserve to be endorsed by the Democratic Party. Laura caps one against Das Williams. They're both great Democrats, but Laura caps versus a Republican is a no brainer that that she would get the endorsement. Again, you know this. Yeah, I know this. And I'm also not podcasting about why you should have endorsed the incumbent in district one. You don't be here acting like I'm, you know, should be anyway, go ahead. No, I was talking about, you know, you were asking all these tough questions last time about, you know, why didn't we wait around and see if we could get some kind of relationship with Doss's opponent this last time and so forth. And obviously, I never suggested you should have endorsed Roy Lee over DOS Williams. All I said was why not give him an interview and the answer that is he didn't want one. He did not go in exactly exactly your answers. Why would we give this guy an interview if he doesn't come to us when boss is a proven progressive for all these decades. Like that's clear, but please don't try to like still had to come on. I had to come on and say this. Anyway, it's just you could learn this and apply it every time, but it's not exhausted. It's not the same. They're each situation is different. You know, yes. Yes. Yes. Anyway, good talk to you. Thanks for letting me have my piece and have a good week. - Okay, thank you, take care.