CA-10: A Quick Post-Mortem

Just a couple random thoughts from last night's victory for John Garamendi:

• Survey USA has been maligned by some for its robo-polling techniques, but they consistently overperformed other pollsters throughout the 2008 primaries, and they basically nailed the polling in CA-10. The final numbers track almost precisely with the final vote tally. Well done.

• These special elections largely come down to name ID, and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. The challengers certainly tried - Joan Buchanan spent $850,000 of her own money and got a whopping 12% of the vote. But Garamendi really cruised to victory in this one.

• Katie Merrill, last seen yelling at the netroots for daring to consider a primary of Ellen Tauscher, became Mark DeSaulnier's campaign manager, where she devised the craptacular strategy of focusing on Garamendi's residency requirement, which approximately nobody cares about, instead of building a campaign infrastructure outside of Contra Costa County. Despite having a minority of residents, in Solano, Alameda and Sacramento counties, Garamendi picked up over 6,000 votes on DeSaulnier, who finished well back in all those regions. There was no way he could have ever won that back in CoCo, where he lost as well by 2,300 votes. Maybe introducing yourself to people outside your base would have worked better than the "neener-neener, here's this technical non-violation" nonsense that is a proven loser.

• Lisa Vorderbrueggen still doesn't get it.

6. I thought Anthony Woods might break into double-digits. Instead, he ended up with 8.5 percent of the vote. He is a strong candidate who was probably too liberal for the moderate 10th District but he kept the elected officials on their toes. I suspect we will see Woods on a ballot again one of these days.

This "moderate district" thing really has to get flushed down a toilet somewhere. John Garamendi was endorsed by the California Nurses Association, the most progressive organization maybe in America. He's a single-payer advocate. He's strongly liberal and far to the left of Ellen Tauscher. And he won. Woods' difficulty was simply a product of name ID and a quick-strike primary. He didn't have labor ground troops and that was that.

• Just to reiterate, there will now be a general election between Garamendi and David Harmer on November 3. Garamendi will be strongly favored.

CA-10: Garamendi Poised For Victory, Only Woods Has Momentum

As John Garamendi touts in a diary here, the most recent SurveyUSA poll shows the Lt. Governor with a comfortable lead in the CA-10 primary set for Tuesday. I am surprised that another candidate hasn't talked it up as well, however, because the only candidate showing movement from the previous SurveyUSA poll is Anthony Woods.

In fact, this new poll, from 8/26-8/27, has Garamendi at 25%, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier at 16%, Asm. Joan Buchanan at 12% and Anthony Woods at 9%, with 5% undecided. The last poll, from 8/10-8/11 was Garamendi 26%, DeSaulnier 15%, Buchanan 12% and Woods 5%. I don't think there are enough undecided voters to push Woods much further, but he's running the only race drawing undecided voters, if the polls can be believed.

Among those who have already voted, the numbers are similar: Garamendi 27%, DeSaulnier 18%, Buchanan 13% and Woods 10%.

Certainly, Garamendi looks very strong for victory, and there aren't likely to be enough voters Tuesday to favor a late riser, but Anthony Woods is running the only race moving from no built-in support to a credible challenge. As for the relative flatness of the two state legislators, I'd say the choice by Sen. DeSaulnier to decide on a monomaniac focus on Garamendi's residency issue, which simply has not moved voters in numerous other instances, instead of giving voters a reason to support him, would offer some answer. Buchanan has run a self-funded campaign focused mainly on finding female support, but not necessarily a larger message. In an environment with three safe or fairly lackluster campaigns, the expected form is holding. Only Woods appears to be taking in new support, but his uphill battle was perhaps too high to climb.

CA-10: One Week To Go

Just a rundown of events in the CA-10 race with a week until primary day:

• Late last week, fundraising reports were due, showing that over $2 million dollars has been raised by the various candidates seeking Ellen Tauscher's old seat in Congress. By any metric - total cash raised, cash raised in the last cycle, cash raised since June 30, cash on hand, and cash on hand less debts - John Garamendi has the lead, though much of his money comes from big donors. Anthony Woods, and to a lesser extent Mark DeSaulnier, have found a smaller-donor base, though Woods' is mostly out of district. Joan Buchanan has basically not raised money at all; she has given herself as much as $750,000 in loans and is generally self-funded (and what donations she has not given herself have come from such health industry interests as Wellpoint, one of the largest insurers in America). I would say the top four candidates probably have enough money to get out the message within their budgets, however.

• The Contra Costa Times, the main newspaper in the main population center of the district, endorsed John Garamendi for the position. However, their criticism of Mark DeSaulnier, that he "acced(es) to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions," gives you an indication of their orientation and whether or not you find them a trusted source.

• DeSaulnier continues to hammer on the largely irrelevant point that Garamendi doesn't live inside the district. Here's a mailer to that effect. And practically every missive from campaign staff re-emphasizes this point. I would like their research department to find one instance of when a residency issue like this had any impact on a Congressional race. I just really think DeSaulnier has missed his target here. He's better off showing his progressive bona fides on issues like health care, transportation and the environment, IMO. This is such a critical time, and residency issues do not appear to be at the top of the minds of people who want to see this country make good on the change agenda from 2008, particularly Democratic partisans who would vote in a special election primary.

• Anthony Woods held another live chat at AmericaBlog this week. His position in local endorsements always comes at the end and reads something like "we were very impressed with him and think he has a bright future."

CA-10: An Interview With Anthony Woods

The race in CA-10 for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher features three lawmakers with long resumes at the state level. And then there's Anthony Woods, a young man with no prior history in elected office, but festooned with what Benjy Sarlin of The Daily Beast called the best political resume ever. Woods is an African-American product of a single mother who found his way to West Point and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is a two-time Iraq war platoon leader who returned all of his men home safely and received the Bronze Star. He is someone who, after returning home, was dismissed from the Army for challenging its Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. But politicians don't vote with their resumes. They must have the conviction to vote with their principles. I actually conducted the first interview with Woods back in April, and since then others have taken notice. So I thought I'd return to Woods and ask him about some of the key issues facing the Congress in the coming months. A paraphrased transcript of the conversation, executed last Wednesday, is below.

DD: Thanks for talking to me today.

Anthony Woods: No problem, thank you.

DD: So how's it going on the campaign trail?

AW: You know, it's really exciting. We're reaching that point where we're really building some critical mass. As you know, I did pretty well in the last fundraising quarter, we're going to have enough money to compete with some experienced lawmakers. The Human Rights Campaign and the LGBT Victory Fund just endorsed me, which is very exciting and shows their commitment to this campaign. We just had a great grand opening of our office with 50 volunteers from across the area. I'm holding a town hall meeting in Fairfield (this already happened -ed.) coming up and we're really starting to see a path for this to happen. It's great.

DD: OK, well let's start with the biggest issue on everyone's minds right now and that's health care. The way it's looking, if you're elected you might get a vote on this. What are your principles for this debate, and how would you like it to go.

AW: Well, I've been getting more concerned every day. At first, I was thinking that Congress gets it. They're going to do something to deal with the health care crisis in this country that I see talking to folks every day. But as we get into it, they're moving further and further away. First of all, they should have started the conversation at single payer so that if they had to move to the center they would have been coming from a better place. What we have are two issues: access and cost. Clearly the system right now is broken on both fronts. 50 million people go without health insurance and the costs are skyrocketing. And the Congressional effort looks to be falling short. I'm very concerned that there may be no public option.

DD: OK, so will you take a stand right now and say that if the bill before you has no public option that's available the day it's introduced, you won't vote for it?

AW: I don't know if I'd exactly go that far, but here's what I would say. I think there has to be a public option that's efficient and effective. And if the Democrats have some bold leadership, they can do it and do it right. What we need is some competition in the individual marketplace. If people have to buy insurance, we have to give them a choice that's affordable. So that's my first priority. And if the bill before me doesn't have that, yeah, I'd have trouble voting for it.

DD: You say it's about bold leadership, OK. Right now, about 90% of all private insurers offer abortion coverage as part of their health care plans. If a public option is supposed to compete with the private insurance market, doesn't it have to offer the same kind of baseline coverage that private insurers offer, especially if they are legal medical services?

AW: I think so. I am pro-choice, and I don't believe in limiting the right to choose. And if you're giving someone health insurance who has had trouble affording it, if they have to make the difficult choice to get an abortion, they need the same kind of resources that you could get on the private market. So I would agree with that.

DD: OK. I want to talk about the F-22. As you know, the Senate just voted down funding for additional funding for F-22 fighters that were designed for the Cold War and have never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan and are apparently vulnerable to rain. What's your reaction to that, and then I want to get into the military budget more generally.

AW: I support stripping the funding. My view is that if the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President all say we don't need them, we probably don't. And regardless of the impact on jobs, we should listen to that. I think we need in procurement a short-term view and a long-term view. We should obviously be prepared to defend the country, but we should be prudent with those funds, because it is real money.

DD: The F-22 funding and some other funding may stop, but the military budget will increase this year. And we still spend more on military activities than any other country on Earth combined. How can we continue to do that, isn't it unsustainable?

AW: My deployments in Iraq taught me that the military cannot be the solution to all of our problems overseas. Because we have this mindset currently, we've created a situation where the military is providing resources that other agencies could provide. We shouldn't have the Defense Department doing the work of the State Department or NGOs or US AID. I think if we shift some of that burden, it will actually make the troops safer, because we can focus resources on protecting them and providing them the equipment they need, instead of making the military the sole solution to every problem overseas.

DD: I want to tell you about a story I saw in the Wall Street Journal. It showed that the top 1% of wage earners in this country, the executives, the wealthy, are now earning 35% of all compensation. How do you react to that?

AW: Wow. That says a lot. You know, these are tough times, and when you see a tiny fraction like that benefiting from the resources of this county, I think it says that they need to sacrifice. We're in a situation where we implemented tax cuts in the middle of a war. We're trying to figure out how to pay for health care. And the top 1%, they're doing pretty well. I think we need some shared sacrifice.

DD: Why do you think it's so difficult for Democrats to simply say what you just said in that way? Even the surtax they've come up with in the House to pay for health care is getting dismissed. Why can't we just make the case that America is worth paying for, especially for those who use the public commons so much?

AW: I really think it starts with people who are willing to say that. And it's why I want to be there representing this community in Washington. My opponents are mostly the same politicians who we keep sending to Washington again and again, and I think we need someone who isn't afraid to say that, you know, the country has provided a lot to a small group of people, and they should give a little bit back.

DD: OK, let's move on. The foreclosure crisis is still hitting California hard, and so far the solutions that have come from Congress hasn't worked. What are some of your ideas to keep people in their homes?

AW: This is something I hear about from people every day when I'm campaigning. In California, we had a moratorium on foreclosures for a while, and I think that's part of the equation, but if you don't provide loan modifications for people, eventually that's not going to be enough. The immediate crisis we have is that people are losing their homes, so we need to make the necessary adjustments to allow people to refinance. After that immediate crisis, I think we have to clean up the regulatory environment, both in the mortgage market and also in banking.

DD: I've heard an interesting proposal called "right-to-rent," where people facing foreclosure can pay rent on the home for a number of years, they get to stay where they are, the banks have a revenue stream and don't have to deal with a blighted property, and the community gains from not having foreclosed properties on their block. What do you think of that?

AW: Sounds good. A lot of people are suffering right now. And it's traumatic to uproot yourself and have to leave your community, to have your kids leave schools. So anything that keeps folks in homes and communities sounds like a smart idea to me. It's certainly better than what we're doing.

DD: But how do we institute something like that when the banks, in the words of Dick Durbin, "own the place"?

AW: That's a tough problem. You know, the healthiest banks right now are the ones who separated investment and lending. And I think that most people I meet are frustrated to see the banks get us to this point. They want common-sense regulatory solutions to change that environment. I think the banks will have a real problem on their hands if they keep pushing and pushing, and people don't see a change in their daily lives while the banks rake in tons of money.

DD: OK, but what's the theory of change? How do we get all this done? When you have a situation where special interests rule and campaign contribution money means more than constituents, how can we fight for progressive outcomes in a Congress that appears to care more about the next election?

AW: Well, I think we have to elect people who are accountable to the ones who sent them. For me, I will give as much access to everyday people as possible, and let them shape my agenda rather than special interests and lobbyists. And I think we need to elect more people who have this philosophy. We're going to have to do it one representative at a time. And I think that's one of the reasons why my campaign is taking off. We cannot expect different results with the same politicians dealing with the same problems year after year. So I don't know if we can deal with everything at once, but we'll have to do it one representative at a time.

DD: OK, last question. Obviously, here in California, we're looking at a terrible budget and lots of structural problems. What can be done at the federal level to perhaps help the state out of this mess?

AW: Well, just looking at the state budget deal, it's basically more of the same. There's a crisis of leadership in Sacramento, and it produced a budget full of accounting tricks that just kick the can down the road. It's clear that the system is broken, and that's why I'd prefer a Constitutional convention and at the least getting rid of the 2/3 rule for budgets. California is such an important economy, it's a big chunk of the country, and when we aren't doing well, the country suffers. At the federal level, I think we need smart investment. The state is a donor state, it doesn't get back in funds what it pays in taxes. So I'd like to help reduce that. And also, we can take advantage of the resources and opportunities in California. This state has the chance to be a new energy leader, through wind and solar. And so I'd like to see those kinds of smart investments in California.

DD: Do you support a second stimulus, focused on state fiscal stabilization funds to save those jobs that rely on state spending?

AW: I think we're having a hard time distributing the funds from the first stimulus. So I think we have to give it some time to work. But we are definitely at a crisis point in this state, I see it every day, so I think we need to monitor the situation. And we have to make sure there's a safety net in place for the people of California.

DD: OK, great, thanks for taking the time to talk to me.

AW: Thank you.

CA-10: Endorsements, Endorsements, Endorsements

Lots happening in the CA-10 race: John Garamendi took the coveted Cal Labor Fed endorsement as well as the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council (Solano County is in the district). Mark DeSaulnier keeps picking up local endorsements. Joan Buchanan took the endorsement of EMILYs List, though I thought their principle was that early money is like yeast - aren't we five weeks out at this point? And Anthony Woods, in a major coup, scored the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which should give him lots of money and volunteer support. It was notable that DeSaulnier dropped endorsements of local LGBT leaders right after that announcement - obviously Woods has become a threat. You can see Anthony Woods tonight on Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO. And I have conducted interviews with Woods and DeSaulnier that I will roll out in the next week or so.

...a good rundown of the race, from Roll Call.

CA-10: Quick Sprint For September 1

The primary election in California's 10th Congressional District is set for September 1, with the general election on November 3. If nobody gets 50%+1 on September 1, the top vote-getters in each party advance to the general election, and given the orientation of the district, the top Democrat on September 1 will be the next Congressmember from CA-10.

The New York Times read off the conventional wisdom yesterday:

The lieutenant governor, John Garamendi, is considered the early favorite to replace Ms. Tauscher. Mr. Garamendi, a Democrat who had considered running for governor next year, said he opted instead for Congress in large part because of the abbreviated campaign [...]

Mr. Garamendi’s principal challengers among the Democrats, some polls show, are State Senator Mark James DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan. Both were elected to their current posts last fall [...]

The rest of the Democratic field is not as well known, though one candidate has attracted some national attention: Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a veteran of the Iraq war who was awarded the Bronze Star for two tours of duty. Shortly after his return from combat, while at Harvard working toward his master’s degree, Captain Woods told military superiors that he is gay, resulting in an honorable discharge [...]

Others in the Democratic field include Tiffany Attwood, a local planning commissioner and self-described “mom who plays soccer” — do not call her a soccer mom — and Adriel Hampton, a former reporter for The San Francisco Examiner who said he was entering politics because of a “Howard Beale moment,” referring to the fictional insane anchorman from the 1976 film “Network.”

We're slowly starting to learn further details. While candidates don't need to announce fundraising totals until July 15, Anthony Woods got the jump by announcing that he raised over $100,000 from 800 donors, which his campaign reports as twice as many as the number of donors John Garamendi announced a week earlier. He's pushing his online efforts:

Woods’ campaign is also leading his CD 10 competitors in online fundraising and online organizing. According to ActBlue.com, Woods is far outpacing the two other Sacramento politicians in the race–State Senator Mark Desaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan—in internet fundraising, and Woods has organized more supporters on Facebook (more than 4,700) than every other CD 10 candidate combined.

Woods has captured some national attention, particularly in the blogosphere, and we'll see if that translates to a quick-sprint campaign. John Garamendi seems not to think so:

Garamendi said it's a three-way race, and he's not counting Woods as a top-tier candidate: "He's a serious young man that's capable, and he's got a national issue and a good story to go with it. And that's to his benefit."

But he said Woods is similar to the half-dozen or so other confirmed or prospective candidates who lack a natural base for their campaigns: "Everybody regards me as the front-runner."

To that end, Garamendi secured a local labor endorsement, from the Alameda County Central Labor Council. There's a small patch of Alameda County in the district, particularly around Livermore. But the dynamic in the race thus far has been that Mark DeSaulnier locked up all the early local support, including Contra Costa County's Labor Council, and Garamendi had roped in the national labor groups. The Lt. Governor getting local labor support helps him with manpower.

I hope to have much more on this race as it moves forward, including some discussions on the issues currently facing Congress.

CA-10: First Major Candidate Forum In Walnut Creek

Given the relative ambivalence in recent special elections in California, where members of Congress have been elected with 10,000 votes or less, I'd consider it an accomplishment that hundreds of people flocked to the Walnut Creek Jewish Community Center last night, on a Friday night, to hear from six of the Democratic candidates who will seek to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10, once she is confirmed to an appointment at the State Department and resigns her seat. Reader dslc has a short on-site commentary here, and Lisa Vorderbrueggen has provided lots of multimedia over at Political Blotter. The audio recording doesn't seem to be working right now, but she had videos of every candidate's closing statement. In case you're just tuning in, those candidates include:

Lt. Governor John Garamendi
State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier
Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan
Adriel Hampton
Anthony Woods
Tony Bothwell

(Bothwell is a San Francisco-area attorney who doesn't yet have a campaign website, but here's his law office site.)

Sadly, this is pretty much the extent of major media coverage that exists of yesterday's event, despite several hundred residents and a Congressional race that impacts hundreds of thousands. Our dwindling press corps is definitely a problem. But based on the closing statements, you can decide for yourself who performed well last night. I'll just throw around some other links as the race really kicks into gear. As a side note, apparently Garamendi brought out the giant golden bear clearly planned as his mascot for a gubernatorial race.

• Luke Thomas interviews Joan Buchanan for the Fog City Journal, and Buchanan comes of as pretty knowledgeable about the challenges we face. She foregrounded her support of mass transit and BART expansion, health care reform (she supports single payer but wouldn't commit to supporting HR 676, and thinks that a plan currently moving through the House with a robust public option could be a "stepping stone" to single payer) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (she generally supports Obama's position).

• Also in the Fog City Journal, Harold Brown has an op-ed about Adriel Hampton, claiming that "SF lefties are missing an opportunity" by not rallying to his campaign.

• Anthony Woods is getting a fair amount of attention on the blogs. AR Dem profiled him in this MyDD user diary, and today, Woods took questions at Firedoglake in a live chat session with Howie Klein. I thought he served himself well.

• There's another Democratic forum scheduled for July 2 in Antioch (Antioch City Hall, Second and H streets).

CA-10: Dan Choi Endorses Anthony Woods

The President is under fire from the LGBT community for slow-walking their issues and turning away from campaign promises. It's getting a little ugly, and the President risks a lot of goodwill for a community that worked hard to elect him, especially in the wake of several victories on marriage equality in the New England area and Iowa and the historic level of activism after the passage of Prop. 8.

Central to this debate is the issue of gays in the military and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Obama keeps insisting that he wants to change the policy, and his nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh, reportedly supports this change as well, saying that he has "no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve.” A recent poll shows overwhelming support for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, even among conservatives.

But the President could end this policy today by putting a moratorium on implementing the policy of throwing out qualified Americans from serving in the Armed Forces. Two of those Americans, Iraq war vets Dan Choi and CA-10 candidate Anthony Woods, are teaming up, as Choi announces his endorsement of Woods.

“For 10 years, I have known Anthony Woods as a leader and an officer of the highest caliber,” said Choi. “From defending our nation abroad, to fighting for our highest ideals here at home, Anthony Woods exemplifies the real world perspective that is needed to bring about real change in Washington, and I am proud to support his candidacy for Congress.”

An Arab Linguist, Lieutenant in the New York Army National Guard, and West Point Classmate of Anthony Woods, Choi rose to national prominence earlier this year when he openly declared that he was gay on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show.” The Army quickly launched discharge proceedings against Choi, who has vowed to fight his termination from the military under the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy,” and re-deploy with his unit.

Like Choi, Woods also served in Iraq, commanding 81 soldiers and earning both the Bronze Star and Army Commendation medal during two tours of duty. Woods was also discharged after challenging the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and would be the first openly gay African American ever elected to the United States Congress [...]

Choi will join Woods at two events in Northern California this month---the first on June 26th in Davis, and the second on June 29th in San Francisco.

Obviously, Woods is more than a single issue candidate. But the imagery of someone replacing Ellen Tauscher, who is currently carrying the bill in the House to repeal the DADT policy, who was kicked out of the military using that policy, is undeniable, and can increase pressure on the President and Congress to finally do the sensible thing and remove that layer of discrimination in our armed services.

How Many More Times?

Rachel Maddow hosted another American hero tossed out of the military because of who he chooses to love. At the same time, the Pentagon has no plans to change the policy.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell today said there are no plans to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits openly gay troops from serving in the military.

President Obama vowed to repeal the controversial 1993 policy during the campaign, but according to Morrell, there have not been serious discussions between the White House and the military about doing so.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen are "aware of where the president wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Morrell said.

Morrell indicated that the White House has not formally sent a request to Congress to abandon the policy. He said there have only been "initial conversations in their early stages" about the situation.

Morrell is a Bush-era holdover, by the way, so it's entirely possible he's spinning and/or lying. But I don't think so.

As Steve Benen says today, there's a solution sitting on the table that the President could enact today if he were serious about changing the policy.

The White House continues to say the president supports repealing DADT, but is looking for Congress to change the law. Fine. In the meantime, as the LA Times reports today, the president has short-term alternatives: "Under the 'stop-loss' provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said. The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military."

I realize the administration would catch some flak for this. Obama should do it anyway.

There's simply no excuse for throwing out people who are willing to serve and provide skill and talent to the military. One can only conclude that the President doesn't want to make any changes. He's making a huge mistake.

By the way, Rachel, I've got another guest for your show: Anthony Woods.

Obama Needs To Step Up And Help Repeal DADT

I highly recommend this segment on the Rachel Maddow show with Dan Choi, a gay veteran and Arabic linguist now being thrown out of the military after coming out on an earlier Maddow program. This is the system that John McCain considers to be "working well." At a time when the military has been forced to loosen their recruitment guidelines to allow admittance for 42 year-olds and the mentally ill, 13,000 members who want to serve have been discharged because of who they choose to love in their personal lives. It's a needless violation of these men and women's dreams and career goals, an unnecessary intrusion into their lives, and a costly policy that doesn't improve unit cohesion or readiness in any way.

Here's Dan Choi discussing his removal from the Army:

CHOI: Well, when I got the letter, I was extremely angry. I was angry -- I mean, the letter is basically saying bottom line, Lieutenant Dan Choi, you're fired. You're a West Point graduate, you're fired. You're an Arabic linguist, you're fired. You deployed to Iraq, you're willing to deploy again, doesn't matter. Because you're gay, that's enough grounds to kick you out.

But the biggest thing that I'm angry about is what it says about my unit. It says that my unit suffered negative good order -- negative actions -- good order and discipline suffered. That's a big insult to my unit.

I mean, all the insult that the letter can do, to say that I'm worthy of being fired, you know, that's nothing comparing to saying that my unit is not professional enough, that my unit does not deserve to have a leader that is willing to deploy, that has skills to contribute.

Choi plans to fight the policy, an opinion he apparently shares with the President. Yet Obama has shied away from meaningfully committing to overturning the policy. He keeps fussing with the language on his website, advocating not a "repeal" but a "change" of the policy. Plus, he could end implementation of the policy and essentially put a moratorium on all discharges right now until the policy review is completed and Congress takes action. I understand that Obama must be looking at the model of Bill Clinton, who came out for full participation of gays in the military in 1993 and eventually had to accept this policy, and he doesn't want to make the same mistake. But there will never be a "good time" to repeal DADT. At some point, leaders lead, and while Eugene Robinson mainly talks about gay marriage in this piece, the exact same statement could be made about DADT:

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is [...]

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise.

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments -- it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage reenlistment -- are often the same, almost word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. It was bigotry then, and it's bigotry now.

Obama should also make the obvious case that forcibly discharging capable, fully trained servicemen and servicewomen for being gay, at a time when our overstretched military is fighting two big wars, can only be described as insane.

Congress needs to act to fully repeal DADT, and Rush Holt, among others, have committed to that option. One of them is, interestingly enough, Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral talking about primarying Arlen Specter in the Senate race in Pennsylvania. While Sestak may be moderate on a few issues, he has always been out front on the issue of DADT repeal.

SESTAK: First, Lieutenant, thanks for your service to our nation. And I think this is indicative of the kind of quality of man and woman that we have lost. Look, I went to war, and we knew by survey that when I went to war that we had a certain percentage in that carrier battle group, and when I was on the ground briefly in Afghanistan, that were gay. And now we come back to America and say they don't have equal rights. I've never understood it. This is something where we have to correct this. It's just not right.

MADDOW: When the president says, Admiral Sestak, when he says that it could be slow going in part because it has to move through Congress -- and again, we know this because he wrote it in a handwritten letter to somebody who is currently being kicked out of the military, as Lieutenant Choi is -- he's essentially saying that Congress will be part of the reason that this needs to go slow. But you're saying that this could actually happen quite quickly.

SESTAK: I think it could, yes. I think the president as commander in chief needs to be the one that says to the military -- and I understand what Secretary Gates said recently about the plate is kind of full -- that's not the Defense Department's decision. This is the commander in chief's decision to say we need to change it, which he has [...]

And I know there's several of us veterans here -- Patrick Murphy, Eric Massa, myself, you know, warriors, veterans, like the lieutenant, that want to, as Ellen Tauscher, who is the primary mover of this, goes off to the State Department, that we can pick it up as co-sponsors, and hopefully rapidly move it. If it's a law, I think we should do it by due process.

Just as fascinating, the aforementioned main sponsor of the bill, Ellen Tauscher, is moving to the State Department, and among the candidates readying themselves to replace her is gay veteran Anthony Woods, who served two tours in Iraq as a platoon leader before coming out to his superiors and being discharged from the military. Woods would rather not be pigeonholed as the gay DADT candidate, and he has much more to offer than that. But clearly he becomes a powerful symbol in this debate, one that the President could end quickly with a little leadership.

CA-10 Impressions

The CDP Convention didn't only kick off the start of the 2010 Governor's race, but the start of the various Congressional campaigns throughout California as well. I'm going to have a full cattle call tomorrow, with my opening rankings for the races, both the potential primaries and the races with Republican incumbents. But I wanted to give the special elections some attention in a separate post. In CA-32, we have an election in just a few weeks on May 19, and Judy Chu has racked up a lot of local endorsements, while Gil Cedillo has made the worst kind of headlines over campaign spending and personal gifts. Given the demographics of the district, I think it'll be a close race either way.

But I wanted to hone in on the upcoming special election in CA-10, because I had the chance to talk with three of the five announced Democratic candidates while up in Sacramento. We don't know when Ellen Tauscher will be confirmed as a State Department undersecretary, and thus when the seat will open up and when the election will be scheduled. What we do know is that there are several good candidates in the race, all of whom offered interesting perspectives at the convention.

Mark DeSaulnier was anointed the successor to Tauscher inside the district by the local establishment, but since other candidates have jumped into the race, he's going to have to work for his victory. And that's absolutely as it should be. But though you would expect someone who appeared to be riding endorsement coattails to Congress to be some kind of creature of the establishment, I and some of my colleagues did not get that impression when we cornered DeSaulnier at the Netroots Nation Party last Friday night. DeSaulnier is an ex-Republican who joined the party as a youth in Massachusetts to vote for Edward Brooke, the first African-American Senator elected by popular vote in the United States. DeSaulnier was a liberal Republican then and grew far more progressive as he went on, eventually leaving Massachusetts to get out of politics (he was the son of a political family whose name was besmirched by corruption charges). But the bug caught him and he returned. DeSaulnier talked to us about revitalizing the public square, about reversing the trends found in Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone, and about how the Internet and blogs can go a long way toward doing that. He talked about how his first instinct with the special election was to tell the Republicans to go hang on their crappy deal. He talked about the importance of transportation in his district, which includes several bedroom communities, and how that can connect to solving our energy problem. He seemed like a serious and earnest public servant who was committed to using public policy as a lever to make progressive change.

On that score, he has a formidable opponent in Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who has been in the policy game for over 30 years. At a late-afternoon meeting, Garamendi reminded bloggers that he created the first tax credits for solar and wind energy in 1978, leading to the windmills in the Altamont Pass that stand to this day. He first looked at cap and trade in the early 1990s when he helped write some of the Clinton Administration briefs (while working in the Interior Department) for the Kyoto Protocols. He recalled his international peace efforts in Ethiopia and the Congo. He threw out dates from 15, 20 and 30 years ago talking about all the legislation with which he has been intimately involved, from energy to health care to the insurance industry to regulatory reform to the environment. He brings a unique and diverse skill set and a deep knowledge of the issues. And he can drill down to particulars. On health care, while he supports a single payer plan as the most efficient and effective policy, he can see a role for private insurance to play, as an add-on or a fiscal intermediary (but "we won't allow them to rip the system off"). However, he wants to make sure that whatever comes out of Congress, which is more likely to be a lesser reform, cannot be gamed by the insurance companies. "ERISA has become a great way for insurers to avoid the rules. A real guaranteed issue (where companies cannot deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition) would be fine, but a sham guaranteed issue would just be ERISA II, which the states wouldn't be able to fix. So the states can help, they can do things, but they cannot get there without real federal action."

Garamendi, as a knowledgeable figure, would be an asset in what he called "preparing the public to deal with" the realities of issues like climate change and rising sea levels. We have to adapt in California to an already-changing climate, and making the necessary changes will require leadership and authority, telling the public that they must "use the wealth of the nation to protect themselves." Garamendi projects a seriousness and a knowledge that would be crucial to this effort - you tend to believe him when he tells you "there are places in this state where we should not be building." On the question of CA-10 being a moderate district, his view is that the district has a set of issues, which you take into account, and then you try to conform those views with the facts and personal opinions, and "try to get the district to see your side - that's the essence of political leadership."

In addition to the establishment endorsee and the policy heavyweight, there's the fresh perspective of an Anthony Woods, who has this amazing bio (two tours in Iraq, biked cross-country for Habitat for Humanity, Harvard's Kennedy School, took a stand by coming out to protest the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy) and yet it new to the political scene. In my interview with Woods you saw that he has a head for public policy. I view him as a compelling story who can mature into becoming a compelling candidate. He has something of a low-key demeanor that will have to change for the stump. But I was definitely impressed with his leadership ability, his confidence, and his expressed desire to ride that wave of change sweeping the country and enter Washington without the baggage of the same old politicians pushing the same old ideas.

There's also Joan Buchanan and Adriel Hampton, and this should be an extremely interesting race throughout the summer, as we may even get a serious policy debate about where to best take the country.

CA-10: Exclusive Calitics Interview With Anthony Woods

The race to replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher in Congress received a jolt yesterday with the announcement of Lt. Gov. John Garamendi that he expects to be a candidate for that seat. And just today, Joan Buchanan has decided to enter the race as well. But these are not the only candidate poised to jump into the race. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Anthony Woods, a young West Point graduate who served two tours as a platoon leader in Iraq. Woods was born in the district on Travis AFB in Fairfield, to a single mother who worked as a housekeeper. He was raised in the area, and after his stint at West Point, he volunteered and took command of two separate platoons that shipped out to Iraq, once in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06, engaging in service for which he received the Bronze Star. Returning to the states, he took graduate studies in public policy at the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard, and in his second year, he entered into a relationship that made him realize the absurdity of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Tired of shutting down his gay identity and hiding himself, he came out to his commander - "I wasn't going to lie about it anymore" - kicking off a lengthy investigative process that resulted in an honorable discharge (for "moral and professional dereliction of duty") in December 2008. Woods was also forced to pay back his education benefits. (A full bio on Anthony Woods can be found here.)

Here is someone willing to serve his country, able to perform honorably on the battlefield, yet because of his identity as a gay American cannot be a member of the military. The insanity of this official policy has been well-documented around here. What is striking about Woods is that he foregrounds the concept of service instead of the injustice of the policy, and would rather not dwell on that incident but instead find a new way to serve. He is close to making a decision on whether to enter the 10th District race, and on the flip, you can read a paraphrase of the rest of my interview with him.

Calitics: I suppose there's a tension between having this incredibly compelling story and not wanting to be pigeonholed into being "the gay candidate" or the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" candidate. How will you smooth over that tension, if you choose to run?

Anthony Woods: I think it's much more important to the people of this district that I didn't have health care until I was 18 years old. I believe the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is wrong, and I won't shy away from taking strong stands, but I don't want to be seen as a single issue candidate. All of my life experience will help me, from being raised by a single mother to not having health care to having to strive for a good education to my experience with veteran's aftercare to my service in Iraq.

Calitics: Let's talk about Iraq for a second. You served two tours there. What do you think of the President's policy, to honor the status of forces agreement and commit to a full withdrawal of all forces by the end of 2011? Is that too soon, not soon enough?

AW: I think the President's policy is right on point. The end of 2011 gives us enough time to wind down this war. I didn't support the war from the beginning - I entered the conflict to bring my platoon home and to serve my country. In 2008, at my commencement address at Harvard I questioned the war and some people didn't like that. But I have always believed that the longer we stayed, the longer we would delay that sense of urgency among the Iraqis to make the choices necessary to take responsibility for their country. So setting a definite timeline of leaving will provide that internal pressure for the Iraqis to reconcile.

Calitics: The Senate Armed Services Committee released their long report about interrogation tactics by the military, and this is the latest in a series of disturbing disclosures about torture. How do these reports make you feel, as someone who served, and what do you think ought to be done in the name of accountability?

AW: You know, I first got to Iraq shortly after the revelations at Abu Ghraib, right after our reputation in Iraq and around the world was sullied. The tactics undertaken by the previous Administration directly put me and my soldiers at risk. They did not make us safer at all. I'm glad that the President put the memos out there, so we can all see the truth. At first I agreed with the decision of the President not to go after CIA personnel who followed orders they believed to be legal by the Justice Department, but with the more facts that come out, I think there's a major need for accountability. Someone needs to have a reckoning for these actions committed in our name. I'm very big on accountability and trust.

Calitics: Have you made a final decision yet on running in this race?

AW: I haven't made a final decision, but I'm real close. If I do decide to run, I will make this race about issues that are personal to me. The challenges we face today are not new, you can see them over the last 30 years. The struggles I faced early in life are the same struggles families are facing right now. The fact that I didn't have health insurance until I was 18, or that my mom's premiums are skyrocketing today, these are all the same problems. And I think there's a need for some new leadership around them.

Calitics; Let's talk about health care, since you have personal attachments to the issue. What would you like to see in a major health care reform?

AW: I support universal health care with a public option. I would like to see an increase in SCHIP to cover all children, an early buy-in for Medicare, maybe at 55 years of age, and subsidies for those in the middle, so they can purchase quality health insurance. And everyone should have that public option so that they don't have to rely on a private insurer that may deny them coverage for a pre-existing condition. I think this is a major issue for families, but also a huge issue for businesses, who have such a burden of health care costs that it's stopping them from being competitive.

Calitics: How has you experience with the VA system colored your sense of this issue:

AW: Very much so. Veteran's aftercare is in kind of an ugly state right now, so I wouldn't want to model the VA system completely. But I do think we can address a lot of the bureaucratic slowness in that system and apply it to the overall health reform.

Calitics: Another big issue we're seeing debated in congress is energy. The legislation being debated in Congress right now is massive, and includes renewable energy standards, cap and trade, etc. I don't want you to have to summarize the whole thing, but what parts of energy policy are important to you?

AW: You know, having been to Iraq, I would say it's not out of the question that a big reason why we were over there instead of other trouble spots in the world is because of their oil reserves. The case can be made. And so I would like to stress that our national security is tied up with our energy security. We have to move beyond the dependence on fossil fuels like oil. Offshore drilling is just a band-aid, it will not solve the problem. I think we have to look to other sources of energy like wind and solar and biodiesel, and it's crucial to our national security in the future.

Calitics: One thing I see not mentioned in these debates is the need for more livable communities, so that people don't have to commute such long distances to get from home to work. The 10th has a lot of bedroom communities, do you think smart growth and livable communities make sense?

AW: Since I left the district, I've lived in places like Boston and Washington, DC, where there is a major focus on public transportation and mass transit. California definitely needs to focus on that, and we need that right here in this community. I also like what you're saying about smart growth. We can build commercial space closer to where people live, and through information technology we can increase telecommuting. There are a whole number of ways to decrease commute times and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to invest in things like high speed rail, in infrastructure projects that also have the added benefit of aiding our environment. Obama did a good job in that aspect in the stimulus package.

Calitics: Last question. Obviously, there's a lot of attention in this race, from the likes of State Senators and State Assemblymembers and even the Lieutenant Governor of California. You've never held elected office. What will be your pitch to people in the 10th to give you the opportunity to serve?

AW: We're at a time when we're frustrated with the solutions we have, but we keep sending the same politicians back to Washington to work on those solutions. That doesn't make sense to me. I have respect for everyone who will be in this race, but these are old problems that have not been solved by the same people. It's time for a fresh perspective, and new energy, and a new generation of leadership. That's what I believe we saw with Obama's election last year, and that's what I think people are still wanting to see. And while I think that elected office is obviously important experience, I'm also coming at this with a different set of experiences. I was a platoon leader in Iraq, I have taken strong stands in my life, things that cost me personally. I have dealt with the health care system, the veterans aftercare system, the education system. I believe I am ready to serve this district with courageous leadership drawing on my personal experiences.

Calitics: Thanks for your time.

AW: Thank you.

CA-10: Anthony Woods

We've been hearing rumors about this for some time, but Lisa Vordebrueggen went public, so now we can begin to tell this story. Anthony Woods, an African-American, openly gay Iraq War veteran with two tours of service who publicly came out to challenge the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, may enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.

Harvard Magazine’s January-February edition features a very interesting story about Woods’ decision to leave the Army. Woods has a masters degree from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Woods was born on Travis Air Force Base and attended high school in Fairfield, according to a spokesman. He is now considering moving back home and running for Congress.

Woods was traveling and unavailable for comment today but as soon as I have an opportunity to speak with him at length, I will file an updated post about him.

I was able to speak with someone knowledgeable about Woods and his decision-making process today, and he told me that he would figure out whether or not to run "in the coming weeks." With no timetable for Tauscher's confirmation, certainly Woods, who also staffed for New York Gov. David Paterson, has some time.

Everyone who I've talked to about this characterizes Woods as a deeply impressive individual. He fought in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq for two tours before deciding to take a stand on their discriminatory policy with respect to gays and lesbians. Here's a bit from that Harvard Magazine article Vordebrueggen cited:

In early November, Woods learned he would be “eliminated” from the army on the grounds of “moral and professional dereliction” and required to repay $35,000—the amount of his scholarship to attend the Kennedy School.

A military career may seem a curious choice for a young man who is gay or even questioning his orientation. But for the son of a single mother, growing up in an Air Force town in northern California, acceptance to West Point was an honor—and an opportunity—beyond compare. Woods focused on the professional to the exclusion of the personal; with the country at war, that wasn’t hard. But two years at Harvard gave him space to think—and to face his dismal prospects for upward mobility in an organization with an explicit homosexuality ban and a strong culture of marriage and children. Even if he had stayed closeted, he says, “It wasn’t going to be possible for me to fit the mold, and I knew that because of that, there was going to be a glass ceiling.”

Even after the invasive court-martial process—the military conducts interviews with friends and family to verify homosexuality, presumably to prevent fraud, for instance by soldiers who wish to avoid an additional tour in Iraq—Woods is reluctant to malign the officers who carried out his investigation. He says they are simply implementing a policy. Change might come from Congress, but Woods believes the Supreme Court is a more likely venue: “I think it’s going to take a landmark court case, like Brown v. Board of Education.”

That we would bar talented people who want to serve their country from that option makes absolutely no sense at all. But perhaps this is a blessing. Perhaps Woods can return to his hometown and find another way to serve - as part of a fresh group of lawmakers who have a new insight to these time-worn challenges we face and maybe some new strategies to tackle them. I hope to interview Woods very shortly should he decide to enter the race. Stay tuned.