Grayson's Victory

CNN interviewed me about Alan Grayson and his health care speech:

"What happened was his floor speech and the fact that he didn't back down set a new standard for how Democrats deal with Republican hissy fits," said David Dayen, a liberal blogger who often writes on the Daily Kos Web site. "He's been a hero to Democrats since his term started, but now he's a hero on health care."

To be sure, Grayson already had shown he was a different kind of freshman congressman before the "die quickly" speech, having forcefully taken Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to task in what was an instant YouTube moment at a House Committee hearing less than a month into the job.

He also held up a vote on global warming legislation until he secured a $50 million hurricane research center in his district -- a move more characteristic of the chamber's longtime lawmakers. And he's won liberal support for his steadfast support of ACORN, even as many Democrats voted to defund the community organizing group, and for his forceful anti-war stance.

But it was the late-night diatribe last week -- presumably seen by no more than a few dozen C-SPAN viewers before going viral -- that netted Grayson more than $500,000 from 5,000 donors around the country. It's also garnered a media tour worthy of a national celebrity peddling a tell-all book, appearing on a bevy of cable and national news programs to amplify his attacks on Republicans.

The writer goes on to add the concern trolling from Republicans that Grayson's honesty won't play in his swing district. That seems to miss the point that Grayson has pretty much always been an outspoken leader, and it didn't just start up during that health care speech. This is the ad that won him election in that swing district.



That's not a meek, mushy message. You can find 10 Democrats to touch war profiteering, maybe. It's an issue that can open a politician up to "you don't support our troops" or "you don't want to protect America" or any number of attack. And he carried this to victory, because it was a truthful message and a populist one.

Grayson won, by the way. The Republicans smelled blood in the water, ramped up their hissy fit, and then had to back down. They did so because they knew it wouldn't be successful. Alan Grayson backed up his words. And so they had nothing. The boasts of how they're going to beat him in November are also just words. They have nothing for that either, not even a candidate.

Media Weathervane Allan Hoffenblum: Time To Duck, Yacht Party

Allan Hoffenblum is the publisher of the California Target Book and the most-quoted pundit with respect to state elections. He is a weathervane for party money and which Party is up or down. He spoke yesterday in Sacramento and was incredibly blunt.

At a conference sponsored by Hoffenblum's publication, the Republican identified eight congressional seats and 13 state Assembly seats as competitive. Nearly all of those Assembly seats and more than half of the congressional seats are now held by Republicans.

"I think this is going to be when we find out if the Republican Party has any life left in it whatsoever as far as being a statewide competitive party," said Hoffenblum, whose publication tracks and handicaps races throughout the state.

A drop in Republican registration and an influx in decline-to-state voters who have not traditionally voted with the GOP have put some districts formerly considered "safe" Republican seats into play.

"I think it's going to be a very, very difficult road on the Republican front if they don't do something about registration, something to appeal to decline-to-state voters, many of whom are Latinos and Asians who have not been voting Republican for the last four election cycles," Hoffenblum said.

This actually flies in the face of predictions at the national level of a 1994 redux. But it does meet with the general trend in California, as a diverse population drops any love for the Republican Party altogether. As Hoffenblum noted, eight Congressional districts held by Republicans went for Barack Obama over John McCain last November, and 12 Assembly districts held by Republicans share the same trait. A smart party with targeted resources could easily pick up more Congressional seats and the number in the Assembly needed to secure a 2/3 majority. In the state Senate, one of the two seats needed for 2/3 looks pretty ripe for takeover - SD-12, where Asm. Anna Caballero is the Dem candidate and Sen. Jeff Denham is termed out.

I actually am not quite as sanguine as Hoffenblum. There are Democratic-held seats that could face a fight - at the Congressional level, I think Dennis Cardoza might have some trouble with Mike Berryhill, and the swing Assembly districts held by Alyson Huber, Joan Buchanan and possibly others could be threatened. The demographics of the 2010 midterms will be more favorable to Republicans than the demographics of the 2008 Presidential election. And the failures on the budget, and the ensuing suffering, could easily resonate with voters against the majority party if Democrats aren't careful.

But in general, as Hoffenblum said, the trend in California from the standpoint of the electorate is away from conservatism and toward progressivism, and that march will simply be extremely difficult to stop. Public attitudes have not only been trending against minority rule but against the entire brand of failed conservatism that brought us the tragedy of the Bush years. While practically every party in the White House loses seats in a midterm election, the peculiar dynamic in California may blunt that impact - and could lead to a better future for California as well.

Blanche Lincoln's Backward Thinking

Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln didn't even have the courtesy to show up to vote down the public option today, instead voting no by proxy in the Senate Finance Committee. She released this statement about her no vote.

Arkansans have told me they support health care reform that forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and prevents them from dropping coverage when you become seriously ill. We can achieve these goals, stabilize the cost of coverage for Arkansans who have health insurance, and expand coverage to the uninsured and underinsured without creating a purely public, new government program, which most Arkansans do not support. I have promised my constituents that I will fight for health insurance reform that is deficit neutral, now and in the future, and that creates more choices for small businesses and their workers and the self-employed. These are important priorities that I believe we can achieve.

In addition, I am working to ensure that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance does not result in a personal windfall for health insurance company executives. My amendment would cut the tax shelter, from $1 million to $500,000, of what businesses are able to deduct for executive compensation. This is a fair policy change aimed at lowering insurance costs to consumers and reassuring them that insurance companies are not receiving excessive tax breaks while at the same time profiting from a government mandate.

First of all, the part I boldfaced is not true. In fact, Daily Kos did a Research 2000 poll just two weeks ago showing that Arkansans favored a public option by 55-38, with independents supporting it by roughly the same number (56-34) and Democrats overwhelmingly in favor, 81-14.

Second, Lincoln is in trouble for re-election. The Rasmussen numbers out today show her losing to all challengers, topping out at around 41% of the vote. While the Kos/R2K poll was more favorable, she still never beat 47% in any of those polls, and her fav-unfav numbers were 43/49. She's going to need some help from Democrats to win re-election.

I know that national Democrats would probably actively work for her defeat given today's votes. The Senate campaign committee is pretty much an incumbency protection racket, but they may be stretched fairly thin in 2010. Most important, Blanche Lincoln needs to win over her fellow Democrats in Arkansas. This will anger them, and the attempt at faux-populism by including an amendment to cut the tax shelter for health insurance company executives cuts pretty hard against her vote to roll back the estate tax for the richest families in America. There will probably be competition to Lincoln's left, and because it is likely to come from the fairly robust Arkansas Green Party, it will show up in the general election, not just a primary. Therefore, it is deeply in the interests of Lincoln to keep the Democratic base in Arkansas satisfied with her performance, and given the poll numbers, that points to supporting a public option. But she did not do that today.

The real test here is whether Lincoln would vote to filibuster the health care bill if a public option is included on the floor via amendments. If she does, it is more likely to hurt her in 2010 than help her, which I don't think she fully understands.

Obama To "Change Focus," Demand Everything But What The Base Wants

Politico, the Web journalism product with an endless supply of trial balloons, sends another one up for the President, claiming that he will soon become more forceful in the health care debate.

Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots, West Wing officials tell POLITICO.

Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.

“We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.” [...]

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

“We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,” an aide said. “There are lots of different ways to get there.”

Clinton made a health care speech in a joint session to Congress in, I believe, September of 1993. It helped immensely at the time, and his approval ratings shot up. Obama, by contrast, has done a few prime-time news conferences, but not one address to the American people on television outside of the State of the Union. And that State of the Union was very strong, and it helped him. I don't know why they hadn't thought of this before.

That said, if he gets specific on the issues of insurance regulations and the level of subsidies for the uninsured and an overall price tag and a mechanism to pay for it and a level of income that cannot be taxed, and only "prefers" a public option, people will take notice. It makes sense to have a very specific bill, but hanging the one element that has excited the base out to dry will just intensify anger toward the President. It's not just bad policy, it's bad politics. The base is very dispirited right now, and they'll be the ones out there advocating for a reform bill to the Congress.

At current rates, any 2010 losses would not stem from any resurgence in conservative ideology -- Republicans are simply not making any significant gains anywhere -- but in a loss of confidence in Democrats. There's a way to change that dynamic -- deliver on the promises made the last two election cycles. Failure to do that would make cynics out of too many idealistic political newcomers, while turning off base activists who do the hard on-the-ground work of winning elections.

Seems pretty obvious out here, outside the Beltway, and the numbers bear it out, but there's no indication that Democratic Party leaders in DC -- from Obama to Reid -- are fully aware of how dangerously close they are to setting the stage for an electoral drubbing in 2010.

Because of scheduling, particularly the anniversaries of the Lehman collapse and 9/11, Obama won't be making this speech next week. I would guess it would be close to the September 15 deadline in the Finance Committee. He has time to think about what he wants out of his Presidency. I don't think his slogan was "any bill we can believe in." A firm commitment to every piece of reform except the mechanism to lower insurance costs will make people LESS excited about selling his plan, not more. He needs to understand this. We're not in a triangulating phase anymore.

2010 Congressional Races Roundup - June 30, 2009

We're setting a course for the center of the sun in the state budget process right now, but today is also the last day of the second quarter, an important day for Congressional candidates, who must file fundraising reports based on close of business today. So this is as good a time as any to take a look at the Congressional races and where we stand at this point. I have not yet done similar roundups for 2010 statewide offices or legislative races, but plan to do so in the near future. If you find any of these challenges attractive, I urge you to pass a few bucks along to the candidate of your choice. This quarter will help or hurt the candidacies in terms of their perception of viability.

A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link. Open Congress also has a good Wiki on all the seats involved.

SENATE:

CA-Sen. Incumbent: Barbara Boxer. Challengers: Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina. Barbara Boxer, who's having a virtual fundraiser tonight with Carl Pope of the Sierra Club in San Francisco, has actually not been seriously threatened in any of her re-election efforts, a fact that escapes those who assume her liberal bona fides somehow make her perpetually vulnerable. Boxer has raised the possibility of disgraced HP CEO Carly Fiorina running, and using her ample personal fortune to amass a campaign war chest. If that happens at all, look for Fiorina to announce in the next few weeks, after the end of the Q2 fundraising cycle. And even if she does run, I don't think it's at all certain that she wins the primary and gets to the general election. Her spotty voting record provides fodder for opponents, as does her terrible record at HP. And Chuck DeVore, while certifiable, has the ear of the conservative Yacht Party base in California and can be expected to do well against any primary foe. I would not be at all surprised to see DeVore oppose Boxer. RedState claims that Cornyn has gone to begging Steve Poizner to drop out of the Governor's race and join the Senate race, which if true further shows the lack of faith in Fiorina's abilities among Republicans. Either way, I don't think Boxer is in much trouble.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

SPECIAL ELECTIONS
1. CA-10. Challengers: John Garamendi, Mark DeSaulnier, Joan Buchanan, Anthony Woods, Adriel Hampton. PVI: D+10. The timing of the special election should be announced in a matter of days, but all the candidates are already running, holding forums and raising money. Garamendi's endorsement from the SEIU State Council continues the pattern of DeSaulnier locking up the local labor vote, while Garamendi gets the national organizations. The question is who will offer boots on the ground. Meanwhile, Anthony Woods has caught the attention of progressive and LGBT bloggers due to his personal biography, as well as national news, which can only help add to his profile. Then there's Joan Buchanan, the only major female candidate in the race, who could benefit from that. We're just at the beginning of this quick sprint, but it should get very interesting.

DEMOCRATIC-HELD SEATS
1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney. PVI: R+1. 2008 General: Obama 54-44. 2008 Congress: McNerney 55-45. I'm almost ready to give this to McNerney outright. He's fallen off of NRCC target lists in their radio and Web ad campaigns. He received the support of local Republicans in San Joaquin County. He's amassed a pretty decent war chest. And Warren Rupf, the sheriff of Contra Costa County who may have given something of a challenge to McNerney, announced that he would not run. Right now, the leading candidates include a vintner and two other folks with no political experience. McNerney didn't have any political experience before winning, either, but these just don't sound like serious challengers. McNerney is well-positioned, and one assumes that after 2010 his district will be gerrymandered to help him solidify this seat.

2. CA-36. Incumbent: Jane Harman. PVI: D+12. Primary Challenger: Marcy Winograd. 2008 General: Obama 64-34. 2008 Congress: Harman 69-31. Marcy Winograd is starting early and running a real campaign, with visibility in the district. She has run print ads in local publications, and has already put up TV ads touting her stance on single-payer health care, which are running during Olbermann and Maddow in the LA area. So there's no question she is offering a real progressive alternative in this district. Harman's AIPAC/warrantless wiretapping scandal has waned, and she has stayed on the right side of activists with her energy and health care stances. So there's a ways to go to see if Winograd can reach a critical mass in the district.

REPUBLICAN-HELD SEATS

1. CA-44. Incumbent: Ken Calvert. Challenger: Bill Hedrick. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.5-48.6. 2008 Congress: Calvert 51-49. Bill Hedrick remains the best opportunity for flipping a seat in California this year. He came within a few percentage points last time around, and the national Democratic Party - as well as the pundit class - has taken notice. Hedrick is doing fundraisers and writing articles to raise awareness, while Calvert's signature accomplishment in this Congress is getting the Ronald Reagan statue in the Capitol Rotunda. I do wish Hedrick would denounce this shameful ad put out by the D-Trip, trying to hit Calvert on hypocrisy for not "supporting the troops" with his vote against Afghanistan and Iraq funding. I'm fairly certain, from talking to Hedrick, that he would have opposed that bill as well. And we should never equate funding "the troops" with funding a war. I think it's disgraceful.

2. CA-03. Incumbent: Dan Lungren. Challengers: Gary Davis, Amerish Bera, Bill Slaton. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.8. 2008 Congress: Lungren 49-44. This is the other race listed by Stu Rothenberg as "Leans Republican," one of only three Republican-held seats to be so honored. Clearly, national Democrats are excited about this race. As The Hill notes, the Democratic challengers run the gamut of major issue areas:

The three candidates cover some of the country’s most pressing issues — healthcare, education and energy.

Physician Ami Bera, who has shaped healthcare policy, filed for the race in April. Former Elk Grove Mayor and current City Councilman Gary Davis, who also works for an education nonprofit, announced in May that he would run. And last week, utility company executive Bill Slaton announced he is also getting in the race.

The biggest foe Dan Lungren has, however, is demographics. The district just gets more and more blue with each passing day. I don't know if Davis, Bera or Slaton will necessarily be the right candidate to capitalize on it, but if Lungren keeps spending tax dollars to erect religious slogans in the Capitol Visitors Center instead of paying attention to the race, he could get stung. Lungren is also being targeted by that B.S. DCCC ad about "supporting the troops."

3. CA-45. Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack. Challenger: Steve Pougnet. PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bono Mack 58-42. Back in May, Democrats added Mary Bono Mack to their target lists, perhaps because of the entry of Steve Pougnet, the Mayor of Palm Springs, into the race. This past week, Bono Mack showed that she may be feeling the pressure by voting for the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. Teabaggers and conservatives are targeting the 8 Republicans who voted with the Democratic majority on that bill, including Bono Mack, which could give her a rough primary. That can only benefit Pougnet, who should have national support from LGBT groups as well. Bono Mack will be a tough out - she's won many a race in that district - but the ACES vote reflects how difficult it may be for her to thread the needle.

4. CA-50. Incumbent: Brian Bilbray. PVI: R+3. Challengers: Tracy Emblem, Francine Busby. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bilbray 50-45. Brian Bilbray is one of three California Republicans (Dan Lungren and Ken Calvert are the others) on the NRCC's list of vulnerable incumbents. So clearly this district is getting some attention. After this past weekend's puzzling raid of a Francine Busby fundraiser, it should get some more. Today, the house party host spoke out about the tactics of the police. There's no reason to tie Bilbray to this episode, but clearly this could spark some determination among local Democrats and get Busby's name distributed nationwide. Meanwhile, there's another candidate in the primary, Tracy Emblem, who is committed to self-funding and spending up to $500,000 to win the primary. Emblem recently touted her support for HR 676 and will appear at a Health Care Reform Community Forum in San Diego with John Conyers on July 11 (despite positioning herself as a moderate). Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, a conservaDem who supported Bilbray in the past, also might jump in next month.

5. CA-48. Incumbent: John Campbell. Challenger: Beth Krom. PVI: R+8. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.6. 2008 Congress: Campbell 56-41. This always looked to be the sleeper race of 2010, with Campbell spinning off into crazytown (he just co-sponsored the birther bill) while the district moderates in tone. And Irvine City Councilwoman Beth Krom looked to be a great, energetic challenger. Unfortunately, tragedy struck the Krom family when Beth's son Noah died after falling from a cliff earlier this month. Krom has vowed to stay in the race, but obviously this is a blow. We at Calitics wish her all the best.

6. CA-26. Incumbent: David Dreier. Challenger: Russ Warner. PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Dreier 53-40. Not a whole lot going on in this race right now; we'll see how the fundraising numbers shake out. Russ Warner was so behind in money due to David Dreier's giant war chest in 2008 that he had a hard time competing. He drained enough of that war chest to make a better go at it this time around. But Dreier is a 30-year institution in the district and is unlikely to go quietly. The DCCC is paying attention to this seat, as they are all seats held by Republicans where Barack Obama won, but at some point that will narrow.

7. CA-24. Incumbent: Elton Gallegly. Challengers: several. PVI: R+4. 2008 General: Obama 51-48. 2008 Congress: Gallegly 58-42. The big news out of this race is that the DCCC is actively recruiting Jim Dantona to run for this seat. Before this time, all the usual suspects - 2008 candidate Marta Jorgensen, 2006 candidate Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant, Tim Allison - were in the running, and it was unclear who could break out of the pack. Dantona has an interesting resume. He worked for longtime legislative Dem David Roberti, and lost a county supervisor race in rock-ribbed conservative Simi Valley by only a handful of votes. He has a big personality and could fare well if properly funded. He does tend toward the middle of the road ideologically. This could be a push to get Gallegly to retire, which he's wanted to do for years.

8. CA-46. Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: McCain 50-48. 2008 Congress: Rohrabacher 53-43. Rohrabacher has decided to take a high profile among those neocons calling President Obama weak for his lack of belligerent statements on the situation in Iran, at one point calling Obama a "cream puff." Rohrabacher's district remains on national Democratic target lists, but thus far nobody has come forward to offer a challenge. We'll see.

9. CA-04. Incumbent: Tom McClintock. PVI: R+10. 2008 General: McCain 54-44. 2008 Congress: McClintock 50.3-49.7. Charlie Brown remains mum about his intentions in this seat, and as long as he does, it remains low on the list of potential pickups. If Brown goes all in for a rematch, it shoots up the list. McClintock remains the anti-government conservative he always was, and in Placer County, that may work, but he is so extreme that a well-chosen candidate like Brown who already has the name recognition could give him the same kind of stiff challenge as in 2008.

10. CA-25. Incumbent: Buck McKeon. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49-48. 2008 Congress: McKeon 58-42. No news yet on a challenger for this district, which Obama took in 2008. When one emerges, we can assess the chances in this seat.

CA-Gov: No Antonio

Mayor Villaraigosa made it official by declining to jump into the narrowing field for the California Governor's race.

I'd been predicting this for months. He really shot himself in the foot with a first term that failed to live up to expectations. Some of that is bad timing with his re-election coinciding with a severe downturn, and some of that is simple overselling of what he would do.

But it was pretty clear that he had no interest in this for quite a while.

After a rumored cattle call that had upwards of a dozen candidates, it really looks like the Governor's race here will feature two - Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown. This sets up that future vs. past battle Newsom certainly wants, but Brown probably benefits from a narrower field and the lack of a Hispanic candidate taking a bloc of votes.

There, it's a horse race post, am I a real live journalist now?

Will Our Attorney General Candidates Get The Prison Crisis?

Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General. He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking. The words "prisons," "jails," "corrections" or "parole" was not mentioned.

Our prison system is a mess. We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole. This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime. The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education. Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men's Central Jail. Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that's a drop in the bucket. We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The "tough on crime" mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.

And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is. Gavin Newsom didn't bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards. He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters. And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform. With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn't consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment. And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon. But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing. Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.

I have appreciated Greg Lucas' interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General's race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis.

Here are Alberto Torrico's ideas to deal with recidivism:

CC: What’s the best way to reduce recidivism?

AT: First, we need to evaluate. See what programs work and don’t work. We’ve got to figure out what we’re going to do about these parolees. Put all these people out and then there’s too many parolees and too few parole officers. We can’t continue to pretend our prisons are drug rehab centers because they’re not. We need to get resources to people who can be helped and make sure when they’re tried at the local level they get put into programs that work.

I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer. I’ve been a labor lawyer. I represented a public agency. The judge tells people under Prop 36 (drug rehab law) that you’re not going to jail, you’re going to get counseling once a week for 12 weeks. You’re not going to beat an addition one hour a week over 12 weeks.

He seems earnest about lowering the recidivism rate as a financial and moral imperative, and these ideas are somewhat noble, but they read like bullet points, without the innovation necessary to really deal with this crisis. It's not just about hoping the locals solve the problem, but a strategy that focuses on rehabilitation, re-entry and alternatives to prison right at the top.

Here's Ted Lieu on the same subject:

CC: Not sure how much it costs but it has to be expensive when we parole 120,000 people a year and within two years over 70 percent are back in prison.

TL: It is a sort of downward spiraling problem. Because we have a prison-overcrowding situation we now aren’t doing any of the skills training in prison programs that teach people how to function in society when they leave prison. And then people come back to prison because they have nowhere to go and that increases the over-crowding.

I’m a big supporter of drug courts. If someone is addicted, they should get treated. When revenues are falling off a cliff its extremely difficult to fund the programs we need to help people when they get out of prison. Long-term view is that yes it costs some money now but in the long-term it would help the state save money.

If an inmate works toward a degree then they should get early release credits as an incentive to do such things. Part of the problem – and this is a much larger fix – is I think I we also need to improve our education system. If we did, we’d have less people in prison as well.

I just see a lot of people talking around the problem. I support drug courts as well, but I think there's a mindset change that's needed. The Attorney General at this point is in a position to transform the entire way we think about prisons and rehabilitation. Rocky Delgadillo gets closer to that.

CC: Speaking of costs, recidivism is very expensive. Something like 120,000 people are paroled each year and 70 percent are back behind bars within two years.

RD: We’ve got to get on the front end. One thing we know about gang members and people who have been in prison is they tend to have a shelf life it tends to end. But if they’re young and active and they go out they do it again. Why? Because in prison they get to hang out with the best in their business. And we pay for it. Great health care plan. So when they get out, they go back to it again. So the answer is to send less in.

We have a program called “First Chance.” I grew up in Northeast Los Angeles. People would say they’ll give you a second chance. You can’t have a second chance until you have a first chance. This is a program for young, but adults who get into our system. Not where they’ve done a serious crime but we know they’re involved with gangs or negative activity. We allow them to go to job training and school and if they complete it, we drop the charges. It’s a much better investment up front then to try and deal with them after they’ve been in prisons. In there, it’s an abyss.

Finally, here's Kamala Harris, who actually pre-empts the discussion by raising recidivism without being asked:

CC: What role can the Attorney General play in the state’s seemingly endless budget mess?

KH: First, critically examine how the criminal justice system is working and whether we are being most efficient with limited dollars. Here’s an obvious example: Recidivism. California has the highest recidivism rate in the country. On an annual basis we release more than 120,000 prisoners and within two years of their release 71 percent recidivate. That’s costing us a lot of money.

In San Francisco, we created a re-entry initiative in my office. Its called “Back on Track.” It’s for low-level, first-time, non-violent offenders. I brought on my friends from labor — the building trades guys — friends from the business community, non-profits, and we give the parolees job skills development, education and help them meet things like parenting needs. A lot of these young offenders are parents. We reduced recidivism for this specific population from 54 percent to less than 10 percent. The national DA’s association has designated “Back on Track” as a national model.

My vote in this crowded Attorney General's field will be almost entirely predicated on each candidate's approach to the prison crisis. Will they reverse the "tough on crime" myth and start talking about sentencing reform? Will they discuss serious options to reform parole? Will they bring up innovative strategies around re-entry and recidivism that would put the focus on rehabilitation and spend on the front end to save on the back end (Hint: check with Kansas)? Will they touch the third rail of the failed drug war by moving toward decriminalization and keeping tabs on those who commit crimes with victims instead of nonviolent drug abuse?

I eagerly await the answers.

The New PVI Ratings Are Out! The New PVI Ratings Are Out!

Charlie Cook's PVI (Partisan Voting Index) ratings have become an indispensable tool for quickly identifying the partisan lean of any particular Congressional district in the country. Cook basically takes the Presidential results of the past two election cycles in a particular district and matches them against the results of the entire country to come up with the PVI number. If a district is R+3, for example, that basically means it is 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. I like the Cook PVI because it isn't based on raw registration numbers, but actual electoral performance that is somewhat uniform across the country.

Thanks to the release of full election data by Congressional district throughout the country, Cook can now calculate the new PVI ratings for every seat. The California numbers are worth considering (You can find them all at this link). As Cook notes, there are 8 districts in the state with "Obama Republicans"; that is, Republican Congressmen in districts that Obama carried (There are no "McCain Democrats"). Those districts are:

CA-03 (Lungren), CA-24 (Gallegly), CA-25 (McKeon), CA-26 (Dreier), CA-44 (Calvert), CA-45 (Bono Mack), CA-48 (Campbell), CA-50 (Bilbray)

Of those seats, the three with the closest PVI ratings are CA-26, CA-45 and CA-50, all which have R+3. CA-24 is an R+4. And the rest in this group are R+6. Keep in mind that 2004 Bush-Kerry stats are factored into this, so there may be a bit of lag from the actual nature of the district.

Of these seats, the only Republican-held seat to get noticeably more Democratic from the 2004 set of ratings was CA-48, which went from an R+8 to an R+6. Several Democratic-held seats shifted in that fashion as well, as the largest partisan shifts in the country were "disproportionately western and suburban," says Cook.

The most Republican district in the state is CA-22 (McCarthy), which is the 44th most Republican in the country at R+16. The most Democratic is CA-09 (Lee), the 5th most Democratic in the country at D+37. A couple other notes:

• Jerry McNerney still holds an R+1 seat. However, this is not surprising, since Democrats hold 34 of the 50 seats between R+2 and D+2.

• CA-10 grew slightly more Democratic this time, at D+11, further destroying the myth that it's a moderate seat. Actual somewhat close (though not in danger) Democratic seats include CA-18 (Cardoza, D+4), CA-20 (Costa, D+5) and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez, D+4).

• Turning to races from last year, CA-46 remains moderately competitive at R+6, while CA-04 (McClintock) is R+10, a testament to how strong Charlie Brown was to even compete.

Now, this just measures the partisan lean of a district, not the partisanship of a particular member of Congress. A better judge for that would be the Progressive Punch score weighted for district tilt, an excellent measure of whether or not a member is out of step with their district. In California, the strongest Dems are Barbara Lee, Linda Sanchez and Lynn Woolsey, while the weakest Dems are Jim Costa, Jerry McNerney and Jane Harman (and remember, that's district-weighted).

A lot to digest here, but much of it is familiar - we have multiple potential Congressional targets, and have for a number of cycles, but just need to use resources and ground talent better.

Showdown At The IL Corral

The early report was that Roland Burris wouldn't resign but would agree not to run in 2010, but apparently that's not what he told Dick Durbin:

Sen. Dick Durbin said today that he told Sen. Roland Burris that he should resign.

But Burris, the junior and appointed senator from Illinois, told the senior senator from Illinois and No. 2 Democratic leader in the Senate that he would not resign, Durbin said.

Durbin said Burris refused to tell him whether or not he would run for election in 2010 Durbin said was "disappointed" in both responses, and said would not support Burris in any election bid. He said he would work with Burris as long as he remains in the Senate.

Durbin joins Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and others in seeking the resignation of the senator appointed by the former and impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich after Burris acknowledged that he had tried to raise campaign money for the governor.

No surprise that Burris is living in denial about it. He'll have to be pried out of that Senate chamber with a crowbar. And in 2010, he will get approximately less support than any incumbent politician ever.

And while I agree he should resign, I'm thinking David Vitter is REALLY not a good messenger to tell anyone they should resign for their "ethical shortcomings."

Please Resign, Roland

This gets more pathetic every day.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

You can read Burris' give-and-take with reporters here.

I was willing to let Burris be a lame duck who would clearly lose a primary challenge in 2010, but I don't think you can have a guy who is essentially admitting to the very quid pro quo deal that got Rod Blagojevich impeached sitting around the US Senate. This could be grounds for his removal inside the Senate, but Burris should do the right thing and spare us the agony. There's no reason for him to continue being a United States Senator.

More at MyDD.

Dance, Roland, Dance

This is the portrait of a politician whose days are numbered.

Senator Roland W. Burris of Illinois on Sunday defended his evolving descriptions of conversations he had with allies of former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich in the months before Mr. Blagojevich appointed him to fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

“I did not donate one single dollar, nor did I raise any money or promise any favors of any kind for the governor,” Mr. Burris, a Democrat who was sworn in as a senator a month ago, said at a contentious news conference.

Mr. Burris tried to explain why he did not mention three phone conversations with Mr. Blagojevich’s brother — in which he now says he was asked for fund-raising help — during testimony last month before a committee of state lawmakers weighing whether to impeach Mr. Blagojevich.

“Anyone who suggests otherwise,” Mr. Burris added, “or would insinuate that my testimony in person or in writing is anything other than fully compliant with the committee and consistent with the truth is simply playing at partisan politics.”

This is pretty simple. Burris failed to disclose contacts with Blago's brother and some other allies, and did so under oath. You can call it perjury or not, but there was a failure to tell the whole truth. And just by virtue of accepting the appointment, Burris was willing to sully himself in order to get the job.

It's going to be short-lived. He'll get no support from the party establishment, who will coalesce around a primary challenger for expediency's sake. Nobody wants to defend a proxy for Blagojevich in 2010. He'll be a lame duck in a matter of months.

Specter The Scapegoat

This is quite telling.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"

Politicians generally have no courage, and Republicans are clearly frightened of their base. But they're also making a political calculation. If the economy rebounds they will get no credit regardless of who voted for the bill. If the economy suffers they can demagogue the stimulus package and run on it in 2010. There's no political reason for them to own this, and every political reason to let their holdouts muck up the bill and reduce its effectiveness. In a crisis sometimes people think about the good of the country and not politics, but we don't have leaders like that on the right side of the aisle.

But it's good to hear this cloak room chatter because it buttresses no less than Michael Steele's argument:

STEELE: Yeah, no, Glenn. I’m not gonna, look, I’m not going to soft pedal this with you. I’m not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is, you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point. So, yeah, it’s going to be an uphill climb.

Thank you Sen. Specter for proving your RNC Chair right.

Hodes, Carnahan In

It looks like what we will get from the Gregg appointment is a firm commitment from the most popular figure in New Hampshire politics to run for the seat.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes will announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate “within the week,” a source close to Hodes told UnionLeader.com this morning shortly before Judd Gregg's nomination as commerce secretary became official.

The developments surrounding that surprising appointment by President Obama “has sped up his timeline and he will make a formal announcement within the week,” the source said.

“We are working on the necessary paperwork,” the source said. “We were not expecting this.”

Carol Shea-Porter, who has a great story, may run as well, but Hodes has a solid record and in the Senate would rival Sheldon Whitehouse as a leader and a conscience. He's strong on Constitutional issues in particular.

Hodes probably would have run anyway and defeated Gregg, but this makes it much easier for him to jump in. Maybe this appointment was what he needed to announce.

In other Senate campaign news, current Secretary of State Robin Carnahan will announce in Missouri for that open seat, and I think she'll be favored to win. I had the opportunity to speak with her at the DNC Convention and found her to be great, although we confined our talk to election issues.

Prospects for a filibuster-proof majority, in 2010, got better today.

PA-Sen: No Rightward Leverage For Specter

Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated Arlen Specter in 2004, won't try a second primary:

Former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey has decided against a repeat run for Senate in 2010, turning instead toward a possible bid for governor as he reaches out to Republicans statewide to assess his potential candidacy next year.

Toomey, president of the anti-tax group The Club for Growth, is scheduled to sit down with several influential and deep-pocketed Lehigh Valley Republicans in early February to “discuss his thinking of a possible gubernatorial run,” according to an e-mail invitation sent out Friday on behalf of Arcadia Properties founder Richard Thulin.

He has also put calls out statewide to supporters this week with the aim of raising money to do some preliminary polling.

At the same time, Toomey has dropped consideration of a repeat run for Senate in 2010.

I'm OK with this. I know people think that a tough primary damages an incumbent, but Specter survived Toomey in '04 and then cruised to victory. Plus, this is more substantively better for the Obama agenda than anything. Specter will now have to be more worried of a challenge from a Democrat than a Republican, and presumably he'll vote accordingly. He's already become the only Republican male to vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and as 2010 approaches he'll probably need to cross the aisle more.

Specter is still among the most threatened incumbents in 2010.

OH-Sen: Voinovich Becomes Third Republican To Retire

Do you think the GOP is priming for a big comeback in 2010? Well, so far, Mel Martinez has decided to retire from his Senate seat in Florida, Kit Bond has decided to retire from his Senate seat in Missouri, and now George Voinovich has decided to retire from his Senate seat in Ohio. I get the feeling that they're less than confident.

Sen. George V. Voinovich announced this morning that he won't seek re-election next year and will retire from politics when his term expires at the end of 2010. And the words were barely out of his lips this morning when the line starting forming to succeed him.

The Ohio Republican told his Washington staff this morning of his decision to retire during a conference call from his vacation home in Florida. Voinovich planned to fly back to Washington today where he is scheduled to hold a news conference in the late afternoon.

In a statement, Voinovich said that after "prayerful consideration and much thought," he and his wife Janet decided he would not run again. Voinovich said "this has not been an easy decision for us. I still have the fire in my belly to do the work of our nation, but after serving the next two years, it will be time to step back and spend the rest of our time with our children and grandchildren, siblings and extended family and friends."

Three swing states, three Republican retirements.

This seats up a real battle. Rob Portman, who was Bush's US trade representative and a former Congressman, and who was shortlisted for McCain's Vice-Presidential pick, is sure to run, and I'd guess he'll be the nominee. Former Senator Mike DeWine may also run. On the Democratic side, there's a formidable bench, including Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, Attorney General Richard Cordray, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and thirtysomething Congressman Tim Ryan from Youngstown, who would absolutely be my choice for the seat. The guy is a dynamo. Bob Brigham has more.

The Shoe Warning Worked!

Jeb Bush will not be running for US Senate in 2010 to replace one-term Senator Mel Martinez. I guess that means we can all collect our shoes from the Palmetto Expressway. But remember, we can reassemble the shoes in a matter of minutes. Oh yes, we can.

More seriously, Jeb is collateral damage to the worst President in American history. You will not be able to be elected dog catcher with the last name "Bush" for a generation or two. I don't think Reggie Bush could get elected to be a provost at USC in this environment.

As for the Florida Senate seat, it'll be a top target for Democrats in 2010.

Boxer Calls For Independent Commission on Bush Torture

It's expected for a lawmaker in the beginning of a new election cycle to get a little more active, with high-profile articulations of positions on key issues. So it is for Sen. Barbara Boxer. In the past week, she has released a report on the statewide recession, featuring interviews with local officials from all 58 counties; demanding that Attorney General Mukasey intervene to reverse a "blatantly illegal" memo by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claiming that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant (the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is); and most interesting to me, wrote a letter to incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry calling for hearings on the Bush Administration's use of torture, as well as an outside commission to investigate it:

I write today to raise an issue of the utmost significance -- the Administration’s use of torture against detainees held in U.S. custody. Despite widespread condemnation from Members of Congress, policy experts, and human rights advocates, Vice President Richard Cheney stated in a recent interview with ABC News that the torture policies used against detainees were appropriate and admitted that he played a role in their authorization. In fact, when asked if any of the tactics -- including waterboarding -- went too far, he responded with a curt “I don’t.”

I find Vice President Cheney’s response deplorable, particularly in light of a recent report released by the Senate Armed Services Committee following an eighteen-month investigation. In sum, the bipartisan report found that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.” The report, led by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, concluded that “those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.” I fully support Chairman Levin’s proposal for an outside Commission with subpoena power to investigate this matter further.

The whole letter is here. This is one step away from the needed call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Bush's war crimes, but it's as close as any Senator has been willing to go. This suggests that Boxer considers an investigation of this nature to not only be the right thing to do in a democracy, but not electorally damaging whatsoever. She should be supported in this belief and encouraged to go even further. I know that Senator Boxer has begun asking for contributions to her re-election campaign. Maybe a series of contributions of $9.12, signaling support for a "9/12" torture commission and an independent prosecutor, along with emails and letters explaining this, would relay the message?

CA Campaign 2010 Odds and Ends

Just because it's never too early to get a campaign fix, here are a few items that amused, exasperated and provoked me the past few days.

• Topline political commentators still have no idea what they're talking about concerning Barbara Boxer's race for Senate in 2010. Chris Cillizza seems to think that Boxer is vulnerable to a challenge by Arnold Schwarzenegger. First of all, her approval ratings are BETTER than Arnold's. Second, there's no way he can win a Republican primary after having advocated for tax increases. His positions on health care reform and global warming and Prop. 8 don't help either, but in particular the tax position is untenable in a closed Republican primary. Chuck DeVore would slaughter him in a straight-up one-on-one matchup. The Yacht Party isn't going to line up behind Schwarzenegger. It's just not going to happen. And Arnold knows it, which is why he won't run.

• As for Schwarzenegger's successor, the great hope of the Republican Party, former eBay executive Meg Whitman, has already lost top political operatives Steve Schmidt and Adam Mendelsohn before she's even announced for the position. FAIL. Although, given Schmidt's performance on John McCain's campaign, I'm not sure you want his help. I think it's important for Democrats to make Schmidt absolute poison for any California Republican seeking to hire him.

• Meanwhile, Jerry Brown, angling for the Governor's office for a third term, is getting fund-raising help from Gray Davis. See above re: poison.

• Glenn Greenwald has been tracking Dianne Feinstein's presumed backpedaling and vagueness regarding torture and forcing all branches of government to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogations. This bears a lot of watching. Feinstein's equivocations and turnarounds against her constituents are so perfunctory now as to be banal, but if she thinks she can get away with wavering on torture and still try to win votes, she's just flat wrong.

• This article at Swing State Project posits that Obama won 4 Congressional districts in California currently held by Republicans - Gallegly (CA-24); Dreier (CA-26); Bono-Mack (CA-45); Bilbray (CA-50). He bases this on assumptions from the county-level data, assumptions which I'm not sure can be made. Anecdotally, I heard Obama carried CA-48, so if anything the diarist may be undercounting this. Once all the data is received, we'll have a full report, but I find this too speculative to be worthy of comment.

Perish the Thought, A Republican Wins In Georgia?

It's a little funny to see Republicans claiming momentum in the country after an incumbent Senator wins a low-turnout runoff election in Georgia. Lots of us were hopeful that Jim Martin could steal the race, but let's face it, he was running uphill the whole time. Especially because Chambliss ran almost entirely on the concept of "divided government" and obstructing Barack Obama's agenda, which works among Republicans in a red state. They had to have this race and they spent millions to keep it. In Georgia.

I'm supposed to be upset? What's notable is that the race was close enough to go to a runoff at all.

But Nate Silver somehow thinks that this is a watershed moment, which I think is some bad analysis.

I tend to think that we should not be too dismissive of Saxby Chambliss's win in Georgia tonight. Although the outcome was expected, and although runoffs and special elections sometimes behave in idiosyncratic ways, moving from a 3-point margin of victory on November 4 to a 15-point margin of victory a month later is a significant accomplishment.

Chambliss received far less votes yesterday than he did in November. He didn't gain much of anything.

And this contrasts with the rest of Silver's analysis, which I think is accurate.

In certain ways, this is an awkward time for a Democrat to be running for office. On the one hand, with the imminent end of George W. Bush's term in office, and the fact that Barack Obama has effectively been serving as shadow present -- Obama is generating between two and three times as much news coverage as Bush according to Google traffic metrics -- it has already become harder for Democrats to pin our country's problems on the Republicans. Yes, Bush did damage to the Republican brand that will last for years to come, but it's the Obama brand that's strong more so than the generic Democratic one. On the other hand, because Obama hasn't actually been in office, the Democrats do not yet have any accomplishments to point to. The Democratic message in 2010 will essentially be one of two things...

1. Obama's accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let's give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,

2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn't accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests ... let's put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.

...neither of those messages really work at the present time -- they require the first couple of political hands to be played out, and right now the dealer is still shuffling the cards.

Yes. Democratic prospects in 2010 will rise on fall on them delivering for the American people or calling out the obstruction. Martin had no access to these messages, and was making them, again, in GEORGIA. While Chambliss' "I'll obstruct everything" message is operative. This is what you can take out of this race - the plain fact that Republicans aren't ready to make nice, that they will block whatever they can block, and that Democrats had better start strategizing ways to get things done.

(Also, you can't attribute Martin's closeness on Dec. 3 to Obama's coattails, considering that he BEAT Obama in November, coming closer to Chambliss than Obama did to John McCain. This is about one side's supporters turning out. Runoffs are goofy.)

2010 Begins!

I know, the last election of 2008 is today, with the Georgia runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. But there's news on the next set of elections too! Don't you just love the perpetual campaign?

And the news is bad for Republicans, to boot. First, Mel Martinez is resigning, setting up an open seat in the newly blue state of Florida.

Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R) has decided against seeking a second term, a decision he will formalize shortly in the Sunshine State, according to an informed party source.

Martinez's decision was based on a desire for more free time and a less scheduled life, said the source. The first term senator also was an almost certain Democratic target in two years time although those familiar with Martinez's political prospects insisted his strengths in South Florida, coupled with his political base along the I-4 corridor, made his path to reelection possible.

The Democrats' favored candidate, State CFO Alex Sink, begged off the race yesterday. I could totally see Jeb Bush trying to rehabilitate the Bush name by running for this, and he'd be a strong favorite, but it's not a slam-dunk.

In Pennsylvania, the biggest news is not Tweety Bird's destined-to-crash-and-burn Democratic campaign, but the fact that wingnut's wingnut Pat Toomey may take on a primary challenge rematch.

Toomey, the president of the conservative Club for Growth, insisted Specter faces more hurdles than he did four years ago.

"He's significantly more vulnerable now than he was in 2004," Toomey said in an interview.

He argued that Specter's core constituency in the GOP, which he called "liberal and moderate Republicans," have since left the party and will be unable to vote in Pennsylvania's closed Republican primary. That will make it more difficult for Specter to prevail against a conservative opponent, Toomey said.

Toomey is absolutely right. It also means that he would have no shot at winning the general election, since all those moderates left the party thanks to nutballs like him.