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.

Burning The Midnight Oil With CA-10

If you want to follow results and find that the SoS site is too slow, just look to Contra Costa County. They have a much larger slice of the population than any other area. I've added up the preliminary results in each of the four counties for the four main opponents, and Garamendi already has close to a 9,000-vote lead:

Garamendi: 22,345
DeSaulnier: 13,827
Buchanan: 9,955
Woods: 6.872

Furthermore, DeSaulnier is performing horribly outside of CoCo County, so he would actually have to win there and probably by a fairly decent amount to have any shot of catching Garamendi. Which I wouldn't bet on.

UPDATE by Dave: My current numbers are:

Garamendi: 23,151 23,870
DeSaulnier: 14,323 14,925
Buchanan: 10,428 10,722
Woods: 7,191 7,485

Sacramento County (only about 1,500 registered CA-10 voters) is all in, and Garamendi beat DeSaulnier there 179-5. Adriel Hampton pulled more votes than DeSaulnier up there. Alameda is all in too, and Solano and CoCo are over 50%. Garamendi is extending his lead in these numbers. He'll be the next Congressman from CA-10.

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: Garamendi Grabs Newspaper Endorsements, Buchanan Posts Ad

The San Francisco Chronicle, which is not completely the local paper in CA-10 (I would imagine the Contra Costa Times has more readers) but which is a large regional paper with reach into the suburbs, endorsed John Garamendi for Congress today.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi stands out in this crowd because his vast portfolio of experience is so well aligned with the issues of the times and the big concerns of the district.

Garamendi said he withdrew from the governor's race when this seat became open because "these are the issues I've spent my life on." Others might suggest his decision was conveniently pragmatic - his bid for the Democratic nomination was going nowhere - but there is no doubt about his qualifications for Congress, especially in this district. He was an aggressive and effective insurance commissioner (think health care, consumer issues such as foreclosure), deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior (delta, climate change) and a state legislator from 1974 to 1991.

The 64-year-old Garamendi has the confidence and depth of knowledge that would allow him to hit the ground running in Congress - and his history suggests he would be unabashed in doing so.

The op-ed had good words for practically everyone running, particularly Anthony Woods, but went with Garamendi. In a weird example of symmetry, Bruce Brugmann and the SF Bay Guardian wrote almost exactly the same editorial today.

Meanwhile, Joan Buchanan debuted a spot for the last two weeks of the campaign, which looks pretty much like a generic bio spot, although with her being the only prominent woman in the field, an ad just repeating "Joan Buchanan, Joan Buchanan" for 30 seconds would be somewhat effective (and basically that's what this spot does). The three electeds are all up on cable TV now. Will Anthony Woods use some of his money for TV?

CA-10: Is That All You've Got?

I'm baffled by Mark DeSaulnier's decision to run a goofy Jib-Jab attack ad on John Garamendi based on the one thing we pretty much know voters could give a crap about - district residency.

First of all, Jib-Jab ads are to 2009 what using Matrix-style graphics were to 2005 - dated, uncreative and boring. Second, look merely to the north and the election of Tom McClintock, who lived 400 miles away from the district, or to the east of him and at one of the SUBJECTS of the ad, Dan Lungren, who has represented Long Beach as well as the Sacramento area, for evidence that Voters. Just. Don't. Care. They want a candidate who will fight for them and who will make bold stands on big issues. Garamendi has done that and so has DeSaulnier on occasion, and I understand that the campaign must be looking for something to use as an attack in the absence of policy. But this ain't it.

Also, if this is about running where the party needs someone the least, couldn't that also apply to DeSaulnier, attempting to leave the state legislature at a time when the Yacht Party uses the 2/3 rule to hijack state government, and any vacancy in the Assembly or Senate just emboldens them and raises the bar? Why even bother with an attack like this if it can be plausibly turned on its head so easily? Maybe because DeSaulnier reads the polls and figured that he had to go on the attack.

Primary fights are so rarely about issues, but we have tried at Calitics to dig down and see what each candidate in CA-10 believes. You can read those interviews at the CA-10 tag, or educate yourself further by watching this candidate forum.

...by contrast, the ad Garamendi released today is simple and straightforward and issue-based, with him talking to the camera about health care, although I could do without using the same footage of him on the horse twice.

CA-10: DeSaulnier's Endorsement Trouble

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier has based a lot of his campaign strategy in the quick-sprint Congressional race for CA-10 on endorsements. Not a day goes by when he doesn't release some endorsement by one character or another into my inbox. The other day he touted that he received a "majority of endorsement votes" from California Democratic Party delegates, without mentioning that he did not reach the 60% threshold that would be required for an official CDP endorsement.

However, one endorsement has caused DeSaulnier a bit of trouble - the support of the former holder of this seat, Ellen Tauscher. DeSaulnier has made no secret of that endorsement, including it in mailers and on his TV advertisement. One problem with all this: with Tauscher now at the State Department, some have raised concerns that her endorsement while working at a federal agency violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees from participating in partisan politics. DeSaulnier's camp has countered that the endorsement, which was made before Tauscher was confirmed for the post at State, always says "Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher" and thus indicates that it was made prior to that appointment. But the State Department has weighed in, asking DeSaulnier's campaign to remove the endorsement.

The U.S. State Department has asked 10th District Congressional candidate and state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign materials to his endorsement from former congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, who is now undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. State Department.

While a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department concludes that the endorsement broke no laws or policies, “Under Secretary Tauscher is committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, on behalf of Undersecretary Tauscher, I have asked Senator DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign material of any endorsement she may have made,” wrote James Thessin, deputy legal adviser and designed agency ethics official.

The DeSaulnier campaign is fingering John Garamendi for complaining to the State Department about the use of Tauscher's name. Actually, the complaint was made by Jason Bezis, an individual who claims not to be affiliated with any campaign, but who apparently enjoys filing complaints with the State Department and the FEC (he filed one there against DeSaulnier's campaign over a health care mailer). It looks like the DeSaulnier campaign won't change current materials already printed, but will consult the State Department "about what qualifies and what doesn't under their request."

I actually question whether this means as much as the DeSaulnier team seems to think, but their strategy all along has been to gather up local endorsements.

CA-10: An Interview With Sen. Mark DeSaulnier

Mark DeSaulnier has had a rapid ascent through the state legislature and now, potentially, into Congress. Within three years, this former restaurant owner won elections to the State Assembly (in 2006) and the State Senate (in 2008), with a Congressional primary scheduled for September 1. Prior to that, he was a 3-time member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the California Air Resources Board. A former liberal Republican in the mold of Edward Brooke, DeSaulnier switched parties several years ago and compiled a liberal voting record in the State Legislature. His first ad of the campaign covered the topic of health care, and I asked him about this and several other issues in an interview conducted last week. Having taken place before the crucial budget vote, I spent a good deal of time asking DeSaulnier about that, and you can see his responses here. Depending on your perspective, he either did or did not fulfill the promise to vote against "most" of the budget, by the way, voting no on 11 of 26 bills, including all of the more controversial ones.

I'll pick up with a paraphrased transcript of the rest of the interview below:

DD: So, other than the budget, how's it going with your campaign?

Mark DeSaulnier: Well, this is a tough campaign, with a big field and a lot of good candidates. The polls we've done show us winning. We've got 70% of the money that we need to compete, and a lot of great endorsements. I would say we have the most local endorsements inside the district. And we're going to be able to put together a great ground campaign, with people I've worked with for 20 years in the district. I think we're going to be concentrated in Contra Costa County, where we can post a big number. I think we're putting ourselves out there as the local candidate, who has represented the district for a long time. And we have people out there walking and phoning, putting forward that message.

DD: As long as we're on California, obviously you've seen the dysfunction at the local level. What do you think you can do at the federal level to remedy this situation?

MD: You know, I read a lot of Paul Krugman, and I agree with him that we're going to need a second stimulus package. And I think we need it sooner and not later. I think we can take what's been learned from the stimulus package that we're doing now. I think the problem is that the banks like Citi and Bank of America aren't lending, and so we need to require the banks to lend, with relief for the credit worthy who are falling behind on their payments, and more money out to the credit unions who have done a better job handling this crisis. Next, I think we have to do some sort of fiscal stabilization. I see it in this state, people who need to access the safety net go up when the economy goes down. And so we have to break that cycle, and I think we can by providing some relief. Finally, we should say that we can do things more efficiently. There shouldn't be this silo mentality. I'll give you an example. We put together these "one-stops," places where you can go for unemployment and job training. And people tell me that you have to get out of one line and pick up a phone in the office to get your unemployment benefits. That just doesn't seem like good government to me. And I think we have an opportunity to make government work better.

DD: Let's move on to health care. Seems to be a big issue for you. What are the principles you carry in this debate?

MD: To me, the gold standard is single payer. We have the problem of getting health care to those who need it, and also how we get control of costs. I think the public option is the first step, and if we do it right, it could be, and really I think it should be, single payer. The question is what are the Democrats willing to give up to get moderates on board, and I think there have to be some lines we cannot cross there. In the end, it has to be about flexibility and more choice. That's the way you're going to sell this thing. It's telling that the moderates want firewalls in their plan, they don't want the people to have more choice, they want to preserve something for the insurance companies.

DD: Will you commit to not vote for anything that doesn't have a quality public plan available on day one, not a trigger, open to everyone, and with the kind of rates necessary to force the insurance companies to compete?

MD: Yes. I think as liberals, as progressives, something we don't do a lot but which we can learn from Republicans, sometimes we've just got to say no.

DD: Congress has started to debate the regulatory reform ideas put forward by the Obama Administration, and they're getting a ton of pushback from the banking industry, particularly on the concept of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It's the same way on a lot of these issues, the banks just won't relent. How do we solve this problem?

MD: Honestly, the politics will never get totally fixed without a public finance system in this country. And then people say, "why should we pay for elections?" The truth is that the average American is paying disproportionately already, when the giveaways to businesses and corporations are factored in. They buy elections fairly cheaply, and they get the rewards. So that's something we have to pursue. As far as your question, yes, I think we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, in fact I think it should be cabinet-level. A Secretary of Consumer Protection. The point to all of this is that if middle income people don't have wealth, democracy ends. That's just the bottom line. And one way to ensure that is by protecting consumers, so you don't see all their wealth go into someone else's pockets. Inequality is just killing us right now. Kevin Phillips wrote about this years ago, in Bad Money, and he was very prophetic. I also think that you can't reform the financial system without holding people accountable. And so I would involve the Department of Justice right at the beginning. That's the only way to really ensure it doesn't happen again.

DD: You mention inequality, it's something Democrats don't talk about enough. A recent Wall Street Journal story talked about the top 1% earning 35% of all the compensation in the country.

MD: It's stunning. And our tax structure, by the way, rewards the accumulation of wealth, not work. This happens when you get a financial services economy, which is completely not sustainable. We don't have manufacturing, we just have this financial services giant, and it trades in bubbles. So one way to reduce that inequality is to retool the financial services sector, make it smaller, make it more boring.

DD: OK, last question. I wanted to ask you about SB375, the smart growth measure that you played a big part in passing last year. This bill doesn't get a lot of attention, but it really offers a blueprint to how to achieve smart growth policies with the statewide authority working in concert with local communities. Do you plan to scale that up if you make it to Congress?

MD: Oh, absolutely, and this is where I think my background really suits me to replace Ellen Tauscher. I chaired the Transportation Committee in the Assembly as a freshman, I think the first person to do that. I spent ten years on the California Air Resources Board, and I co-authored SB375. I'm pretty sure there's a companion bill in Congress right now. Doris Matsui (CA-05) is carrying it right now. I have honed in throughout my career on the changing transportation and mobility side of the energy issue. We accomplish this, in part by reducing miles, and also finding new energy sources for transportation. We need more transit, and a move away from single-occupancy vehicles and long commutes. It's about bringing the work space closer to the living space, and creating livable communities. So I think I'm naturally suited for such a task. I'd like to get on the Transportation Committee if I get to Congress.

DD: Thanks for your time today.

MD: No problem, thank you.

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: An Interview With Adriel Hampton

We have less than 50 days until the special election in the 10th Congressional District to replace Ellen Tauscher, who resigned to take a job at the State Department. The candidates include local members of the legislature, the state's Lieutenant Governor, and several candidates with interesting resumes. There's even word that New Age guru and Oprah pal Marianne Williamson may get into the race, although she doesn't have much time to make her decision. The 2nd quarter fundraising totals revealed some interesting outcomes, and the campaign staffs have debated who has the most local support and the most endorsements. There's even a burgeoning controversy about Ellen Tauscher's presence on Sen. Mark DeSaulnier's mailers, which may violate the Hatch Act now that she works in the State Department.

We've heard a lot about strategies, funding and endorsements, but a little less so about where the candidates stand on the issues. So I'm making an effort to interview all the Democratic candidates in the race, to discuss their views on the type of vexing problems that the country faces which they would be expected to deal with in Congress. The first candidate to respond was Adriel Hampton, the former Political Editor at the San Francisco Examiner and an investigator in the SF City Attorney's Office. What follows is a paraphrased transcript of the interview I conducted last week.

DD: Thanks for taking some time to talk with me.

Adriel Hampton: Thank you for contacting me, this is great.

DD: How are things going with the campaign?

AH: Things are good. I kind of feel on the razor's edge here, where I could either do really well or crash out. Obviously, (Anthony) Woods and I are the underdogs, while the elected officials are duking it out. Woods focused on fundraising and did a pretty good job, while I focused on building a volunteer organization. I'm working on voter ID in a distributed way using volunteers, and I've dropped 8,000 pieces of literature, half of it myself. I have two little kids, and I've been canvassing basically every night after they go to sleep since April. I got a designer in Los Angeles to deliver sharper literature, with a better printer, and I'm starting some targeted PAC fundraising among peace groups and progressive organizations. I think Anthony and I are running a bit to the left of the field. And then you have the possibility of Marianne Williamson getting in, and she has a major public profile as well as having worked with Kucinich in the past. I think she takes votes from everybody a bit, but certainly (Assemblywoman Joan) Buchanan.

I've just been trying to build a consistent presence on the ground, through appearances and volunteer events. The other campaigns have big staffs, especially (Lt. Gov. John) Garamendi. (Sen. Mark) DeSaulnier has the Democratic club circuit down, and Garamendi is kind of running an air war. But the poll he put out showed an 80% name ID and only 24% of the vote. I've been campaigning everywhere, all over the district, and we'll see how it goes.

DD: Let's get into the issues. I've been looking at your 12 ideas to change the nation, and right at the top is economic reform. Could you talk about that a bit?

AH: Absolutely. I got into this race to discuss economic issues and taking on Wall Street. In fact, I was strongly considering running a primary against Ellen Tauscher, I have been critical of her since her vote to authorize the Iraq war. Then I learned about how she was one of Wall Street's biggest friends. I'm running as an economic progressive. A big problem with the Democratic Party is that they consistently fail everyday citizens on economic issues. In many ways, they're just as corporate as the other party. I was active in the grassroots against the Bush bailout. Obama brought in some of the same people responsible for taking us down that road with Wall Street. I supported the stimulus, and the opportunity for New Deal-type spending, but I think we need to go further and break up the political power of Wall Street.

DD: You mention supporting credit unions. How exactly would Congress be able to do that?

AH: I think we can favor them with an FDIC guarantee, promoting them as an alternative to the global banks. During the financial crisis, the banks outside the big national firms tended to do better. And so I think we should encourage that more local approach.

DD: There's been a lot of talk recently about bankslaughter, this idea that we could add a new crime to hold bank managers personally responsible for behaving recklessly or in a negligent way. Do you support bankslaughter?

AH: I would tone down the name to enact popular support! But you know, when you see someone like Angelo Mozilo, he certainly engaged in what I would call a dereliction of duty. I don't have a problem with holding bankers personally responsible for failing to hold to certain consumer protections. What I've seen is that the grassroots folks who are not necessarily active in politics are very receptive to this. They want to see some accountability. And I don't want to harp on Obama entirely about these issues, he needs a progressive Congress as well to push this through, it's not all on him.

DD: OK. Another one of your 12 issues I read kind of surprised me, it was about conscience clauses. As it turns out, there was a federal ruling recently saying that pharmacies must dispense the Plan B pill and cannot use their religious beliefs to deny women legal medical aid that they seek. How you do respond to that?

AH: I am not for restricting access to the morning after pill or abortion information. All I'm saying is that there has been a robust system of jurisprudence around reasonable exemptions. You cannot fire disabled people because they cannot perform one task in a job, you have to make an exemption. If a pharmacist doesn't want to provide those pills, some other pharmacist can in their place.

DD: But some people live in rural areas where they have no other choice but one pharmacist for possibly hundreds of miles. If that person doesn't want to provide legal services, shouldn't he find another job?

AH: Well, I'm for reasonable accommodation, not blocking access to health care. I believe in allowing people to exercise their individual liberties as long as they don't infringe on others. I'm willing to talk about the nuance of issues like this, to see if we can come to an understanding.

DD: The biggest issue in Congress right now is health care. Where do you stand?

AH: Well, I'm for single payer. Pete Stark, up here in the Bay Area, decided to vote against that cap and trade bill because it was too weak, and conservatives now love him for it. But I don't think that should come into account, and I don't think the grassroots should give up. Some of my opponents say we should get what we can get, but we might lose the momentum for reform if we do that. But I understand that we have to treat those millions of people who are suffering right now without health insurance.

DD: Let me ask you this, would you agree to refuse to sign any bill without a robust public option that is available immediately and can use Medicare bargaining rates to drive down costs?

AH: You know what, I would. I would not vote for anything that didn't severely change the insurance system. I'm not a violent person, but the system is so violent right now that I feel the need to do violence to it. And the same with war funding efforts without drawdowns and timelines, I couldn't vote for that. I know that the ads would kill me, defying the President. But I think it's important to talk about the issues, meeting as many people as I can, going right to them and explaining myself. There have to be lines in the sand. We have a radical right-wing party in this country that is almost insane. And the Democrats are playing down the center. We need some organizing from the left. Just imagine someone like me, a regular guy, expressing the beliefs of Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. I'm not afraid of the word socialist in certain respects. I think there's a role for government in equalization, to provide an economic bulwark against death, disease, and poverty. And I get that regular people in the insurance industry may suffer, but are they worth the struggle of 47 million uninsured? At least we can start these debates on the left, I think it would result in a better outcome.

DD: Obviously at Calitics we're focused on the budget issues. What help do you think the federal government could provide to help get some systemic reform here?

AH: Well, I voted all No on May 19, because I didn't see any serious reform efforts in there. One benefit of the problems now in California, which are tragic, is that I hope people are waking up. There's such a right-wing influence in the media and the popular consciousness. As it turns out, California's taxes are not progressive. I just think there's a rage on the populist level that can be tapped by progressives. Everyone in this race is a strong liberal, but I think I'm the only progressive, fighting for progressive taxation and labor rights.

DD: So what reforms can we get out of Congress? Some want the Feds to provide loan guarantees to the states, or they can condition a second stimulus to real budget reform, or even take Medicaid out of a state/federal partnership and into the realm of a purely federal program to smooth out outcomes throughout the country. Where do you fall?

AH: Probably along the lines of more extreme reforms. I appreciate Calitics' reporting on this. The loan guarantees sound like a good idea. I could live with centralized funding of Medicaid with local administration. And I'm for carrots and sticks in any stimulus funding, the idea that if you bail out a state, they have to have additional guarantees. Overall, I'm for structural reform. One of my opponents, Sen. DeSaulnier, is pushing a Constitutional convention. But we all need to stay on top of that.

DD: One final question, with respect to Iran. You wrote in your 12 points to change the nation that "I will oppose, by any means necessary, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon." Obviously, a lot has happened since you wrote that. Are you revisiting this, and how can we engage with Iran now given the scenes of repression?

AH: Iran is one of the most difficult issues we have right now. We shouldn't forget the amazing turnout in their election, almost 85%. What did we have for the special election, 25%? We shouldn't really be in the position of telling Iran what to do. And you cannot give a state democracy, the people have to want it for themselves, things have to happen. Military intervention in Iran right now would be terrible. And we have to be careful, because the students over there are already being scapegoated as US puppets. It's also an open question whether Mousavi has clean hands, or if he's just an outlet valve for the current system. But I still believe we have to have negotiations. I think Woods and I are the only two who said that at our last forum. Garamendi was talking about banning the import of refined oil. That would only hurt everyday people in Iran. So I think we need diplomatic relations and a strategic dialogue. I'm not happy about dealing with Ahmadienjad, but you have to play the hand you're dealt.

DD: OK, thanks-

AH: Can I add one final issue? I am the only candidate in the race who supports the full legalization of marijuana, I think Woods supports decriminalization. We're seeing a modern prohibition movement, and that leads to inefficient and dangerous outcomes. We have a highly regulated alcohol industry, and I think we could do the same thing with marijuana. I don't smoke, but people like me, squares, need to say, "what is the policy benefit of continuing the drug war?"

DD: All right. Thanks for your time.

AH: Great, thanks.

CA Congressional Fundraising A Go-Go

Today is the deadline for Congressional incumbents and challengers to declare their fundraising totals for the second quarter of 2009, and some numbers on the California candidates jump out. If I write "incomplete," that's because their FEC report hasn't popped up yet. I'll fill in when they become available:

We'll start with the special election in CA-10:
John Garamendi: $300,000 raised, $260,000 CoH, $54,000 debt
Mark DeSaulnier: incomplete $212,000 raised, $136,000 CoH, $77,000 debt
Joan Buchanan: incomplete $64,000 raised, $179,000 CoH, $308,000 debt
Anthony Woods: $105,000 raised, $65,000 CoH
Adriel Hampton: incomplete

Waiting on more info on this one. John Garamendi's number came from 350 people, almost $1,000 a head. That suggests no grassroots fundraising base. Anthony Woods had over twice as many donors, who could be tapped again. UPDATE: OK, this is interesting. Joan Buchanan raised a fairly paltry amount considering the primary is in six weeks, but she took out a $250,000 loan and has a significant amount of debt. She seems to be blowing through operating expenses too. Likewise, Mark DeSaulnier, who raised a decent amount, has over half of his cash on hand in debt. And I missed that John Garamendi has $50,000 in debt as well. Suddenly, Anthony Woods has more debt-free cash on hand than anyone in the field but Garamendi.

CA-03:
Gary Davis: $34,000 raised, $30,000 CoH
Dr. Amerish Bera: $288,000 raised, $286,000 CoH
Dan Lungren (inc.): incomplete $233,000 raised, $322,000 CoH

That is an eye-popping number for Amerish Bera, and lest you see it as a doctor self-funding, only $4,800 came from the candidate. I was shocked by that total. We'll see what Dan Lungren ends up raising later today, but it's entirely possible that Bera will have MORE cash on hand than the incumbent (Lungren only had $121,000 on hand at the end of April, with $12,000 in debts). Wow. UPDATE: So Bera outraised Lungren, but he ekes out a cash on hand lead. As an incumbent, however, that's a weak performance.

CA-45:
Steve Pougnet: $201,000 raised, $203,000 CoH
Mary Bono Mack (inc): $166,000 raised, $448,000 CoH

Steve Pougnet outraised the incumbent in Q2, which is quite impressive. Mary Bono Mack starts out with a bigger war chest, so he has some work to do, but this is an excellent start, and I think Pougnet has a natural fundraising base that will only expand once his story gets out.

CA-44:
Bill Hedrick: $65,000 raised, $66,000 CoH
Ken Calvert (inc.): incomplete $407,000 raised, $384,000 CoH

Certainly an improvement over the first quarter for Bill Hedrick, and all of the money came from Southern California, which means he has a solid fundraising and volunteer base locally. He needs to spread that out nationally to maximize his potential in this winnable race.

CA-26:
Russ Warner: $60,000 raised, $58,000 CoH
David Dreier (inc.): $138,000 raised, $872,000 CoH

Believe it or not, Dreier actually had a much bigger war chest last cycle. Russ Warner needs to do better to be competitive, but he's actually in a slightly better position than two years ago.

CA-48:
Beth Krom: $76,000 raised, $98,000 CoH
John Campbell (inc.): $223,000 raised, $470,000 CoH

This was a tough quarter for Krom, with the tragic death of her son taking up a lot of time in the final weeks. Campbell ramped up his fundraising a bit after Krom beat him in the last quarter.

CA-50:
Francine Busby: $160,000 raised, $136,000 CoH
Tracy Emblem: $22,000 raised, $15,000 CoH
Brian Bilbray (inc.): incomplete $325,000 raised, $388,000 CoH

A solid quarter of fundraising for Francine Busby, notwithstanding that police action at one of her fundraisers while guests were pepper sprayed. UPDATE: Brian Bilbray had a good quarter.

CA-24:
Elton Gallegly (inc.): $42,000 raised, $831,000 CoH

The field is still getting together in this race, but I wanted to see Elton Gallegly's fundraising output, which is somewhat pathetic. He does have enough of a war chest that he doesn't necessarily need to get moving on that yet, however.

UPDATE the last: Swing State Project has a full roundup with a number of other interesting tidbits.

• In CA-04, Tom McClintock raised a bundle - $341,000 - but he still has over $100,000 in outstanding debt and only $245,000 CoH. Some fiscal conservative.

• In CA-10, one Republican is showing financial viability, David Harmer, with a $175,000 haul (but that's based on the first six months, not just the quarter). He has $144,000 CoH and $17,000 in outstanding debt. And his ideological viability in that district is, shall we say, suspect, though he is likely to reach a runoff.

• In CA-11, which I think is safe, Jerry McNerney raised $288,000 and has $519,000 cash on hand. One of his potential opponents, Brad Goehring, would seem to have a good financial position with $259,000 CoH, but he only raised $14,000 for the quarter and has $250,000 in debt due to a massive loan. The same with Jon Del Arroz, who guaranteed a huge loan for himself and has as much in debt as he does in cash on hand. These guys are wasting money, in my opinion.

• I added Ken Calvert's numbers in CA-44. Clearly the NRCC is protecting him by bolstering his fundraising.

• CA-47 is on the fringe of being competitive, but Van Tran had a good quarter, beating Loretta Sanchez (barely) in fundraising:

Sanchez: $242,000 raised, $714,000 CoH
Tran: $253,000 raised, $251,000 CoH, $10,000 debt

Tran gave himself $5,500 to boost his total. And Loretta has a pretty large war chest from prior years.

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).

Campaign Update: CA-10, CA-03, CA-47, CA-50

The Internet moves at, well, Internet speed, so parts of my House race roundup were already out of date or incomplete by the time I published it. So here's an update on a few races.

• CA-10: John Garamendi announced a significant series of national labor endorsements for the upcoming CA-10 race, despite Mark DeSaulnier having locked up the Contra Costa County Central Labor Committee endorsement and the local Building Trades (which cover almost 100 local unions) and chairing the Senate Labor Committee. They include:

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CNA: California Nurses Association
CFT: California Federation of Teachers
UFCW: United Food & Commercial Workers
CSEA: California School Employees Association
Laborers International Union of North America
International Union of Operating Engineers
CWA: Communication Workers of America

Many of those can provide PAC money, resources and support to Garamendi, leveling the playing field in a race where DeSaulnier captured all the early endorsements.

• CA-03: I passed on the rumor about Phil Angelides and CA-03 in my roundup, but local blogger Randy Bayne dismisses that report and notes that Elk Grove City Councilman Gary Davis will likely run, having met with the DCCC and begun the process of putting a team together. I don't agree with Bayne that a contested primary (Dr. Amerish Bera has also announced) would impact negatively on the race. Especially when the candidates have low name ID, a primary can increase their public profile and show them to be a "winner" in front of the district, at the end. Momentum can build. Primaries don't necessarily have to be nasty and debilitating, and I fail to understand why anyone would reject them out of hand.

Incidentally, I never took much stock in the rumor about Angelides, I simply thought it would be a decent line of inquiry, given his name ID, fundraising ability and progressive profile.

CA-47: One potential challenge to a Democratic incumbent I overlooked yesterday was Van Tran's run against Loretta Sanchez, profiled in Politico.

On the heels of an election marked by a dismal performance among Asian voters, top Republicans are aggressively recruiting California Assemblyman Van Tran, a Vietnamese-American, to challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) next year.

If elected, Tran would be the second Vietnamese-American in Congress, after Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-La.), who won his seat in a 2008 election.

Tran has already been feted at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s March fundraising dinner as a guest of the committee’s recruitment chairman, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and he was encouraged to run by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor. He also made a trip to Washington after last November’s election to meet with officials from the NRCC.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has assisted in the recruitment process, meeting with Tran and offering support for any potential candidacy. Tran was an outspoken backer of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and helped him carry Orange County over Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

What the story fails to mention is that, not only does Tran not have full support among the Vietnamese community in the district, not only does Loretta Sanchez have experience easily defeating Vietnamese challengers, but Tran didn't even do that well in his own Assembly race last year, winning over 55% of the vote against Ken Arnold. If Tran is one of the Republicans' top recruits, they're in even bigger trouble than I thought. Incidentally, Sanchez' voting record has greatly improved over the past couple years.

• CA-50: I should have cited Francine Busby's Firedoglake chat from a couple weeks ago. I don't think I agree with her on this, though:

I’ve alway said that the Latino voters have to organize register and educate from within their own community. I see more activism and organizing going on than I did before. In fact, I will be attending a meeting on Monday of the reconstituted Latino American Democratic Club in Oceanside. We may have a strong Latina running for a state office who can rally the base. Also, Bilbray is their worst nightmare, so I expect that to motivate them to get out to vote. I reach out to leaders in the community as much as possible to maintain good communications and understanding.

Outreach consists of more than "hopefully they'll self-organize." You need to actually engage the Latino community instead of hoping some other local candidate can do it for you. Not a good sign.

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: Garamendi Enters The Race

You can forget the John Garamendi to CA-03 boomlet, because he is officially announcing his intention to run for the vacancy in CA-10 caused by the departure of Ellen Tauscher, and he'll even do a little campaigning today in Fairfield and Concord, at two one-stop employment centers.
Obviously, Garamendi felt outgunned monetarily in the Governor's race, and thought that the CA-10 special election offered him the best shot at higher office. It's hard to fault him - this is a strategic play that makes a fair bit of sense. While Sen. Mark DeSaulnier has nabbed the early endorsements, the polls show both him and Joan Buchanan with fairly low name ID in the district, so Garamendi's long time in the public spotlight should serve him well. And without question he would improve upon Tauscher in that district, and could emerge as a real leader.

However, I don't see this as a slam-dunk yet. Those DeSaulnier endorsements, including the major local politicians and labor, are all pretty crucial, although I suppose they could be adjusted. Plus, there may be additional new candidates entering the race, which I'll have more about tomorrow.

For today, John Garamendi has the stage.

Campaign Update: CA-04, CA-32, CA-03, CA-10, CA-Yacht Party

Since it referenced me, let me start by shouting out to fellow Calitician Lucas O'Connor, writing on the front page of MyDD:

Since approximately the morning after election day in November, Dave Dayen has been writing over at Calitics about the dramatic Congressional pick-up opportunities in California that were missed in the Obama wave. Specifically, Obama carried 42 of California's 53 districts (I won't even begin right now to get into the state leg breakdown which is also a debacle), including eight districts held by Republicans in Congress. Well all of a sudden this week, the whole world is waking up to the Dayen gospel.

Attention started building about two weeks ago when the DCCC announced it would target all eight of these Obama-Republican California districts. But an announcement of DCCC targeting hasn't always meant a lot, so to really get going it took a new report from California Target Book finding in part:

Not only is the current statewide Republican registration of 31% a historic low, but for the first time there is not a single congressional, state senate or assembly district that has a majority Republican registration.

Apparently Bob Mulholland sent out a press release waking up to these facts last week. Now, I'm not going to hate on Mulholland for finally getting with the program. But let's make ourselves clear - this was true in 2006 and 2008 as well, and yet the state party failed to capitalize, by their own admission. So it's going to take more than one press release to show a commitment. Republicans have obviously become repellent to the broad majority of Californians, and they're too busy trying to recall each other to notice. It's upsetting that we haven't used this unpopularity in the past two election cycles, and I hope that the CDP can catch up with the curve.

They can start with effective recruitment. John Garamendi, who spoke to Greg Lucas as if he's still a gubernatorial candidate but who by all accounts will be running for Congress, ought to be pushed to run in the 3rd District, where he is the largest landowner and where there is currently no viable candidate to beat Dan Lungren in a district that is trending Democratic, instead of the 10th, where there are multiple viable candidates. Recruitment is an often-unremarked-upon but crucial element to winning elections.

Speaking of which...

• CA-04: This CapAlert piece certainly makes it sound like Charlie Brown might challenge Tom McClintock once again.

At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner at the Blue Goose Fruit Shed in Loomis, Brown and his wife, Jan, were honored as photographs flashed of Brown and supporters during four years of campaigning. The production was accompanied by songs from Bruce Springsteen's "No Surrender" to Neil Young's "Long May You Run."

And then Brown stirred huge cheers when he hinted he might have the stamina for one more try for Congress in 2010.

"We'll see what happens over the next few months - and whether you'll have the opportunity to get into any pictures again," Brown said.

In an interview, Brown said he is still mulling his prospects. He said he expects to decide by this fall.

We're big fans of Charlie here at Calitics, and should he run again we'll stand with him. McClintock would have the power of incumbency and a red-leaning district but the rumblings I'm hearing out of there signal that residents and local pols aren't all that enthused by the new Congressman's performance.

• CA-32: The LA Times weighs in with an overview of the 32nd race to replace Labor Secretary Hilda Solis set for May 19. They list Judy Chu and Gil Cedillo as the front-runners (though Emanuel Pleitez is profiled) and suggest that the race is a harbinger of the changing, minority-majority face of Southern California politics. They also mention the Betty Tom Chu controversy, as well as some allegations on the Cedillo side.

Judy Chu supporters suspect that Republican Betty Tom Chu, a Monterey Park councilwoman and a political opponent of Judy Chu, entered the race to confuse voters and harm the chances of her distant relative by marriage. Tom Chu said last week she did not have time to discuss her candidacy, but earlier told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune that she is running because she could not support any of the other candidates and wanted to offer voters an alternative.

Apparently motivated by concerns that the large number of Latino candidates in the race would split the vote in that group and give Judy Chu the edge, there also were signs of jockeying.

Democratic candidate Francisco Alonso, a former mayor of Monterey Park, and a campaign official for Democratic actor/filmmaker Stefan "Contreras" Lysenko each said Cedillo called them shortly before filing closed and urged them to drop out. A Cedillo spokesman said the state senator was merely inviting the others to "work together" with him and did not intend to discourage them from running.

Over the weekend, Cedillo won the endorsement of the LA County Young Democrats, while Chu garnered the endorsement of the state Democratic Party.

CA-10: Report: Garamendi To Run

Capitol Weekly is typically pretty clued in, and today they report that John Garamendi will run for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher.

We hear that John Garamendi is getting ready to jump into the Congressional race against Mark DeSaulnier for Ellen Tauscher’s vacant, East Bay Congressional seat. Garamendi has name ID in a race that will likely feature low turn-out, and has to be seen as a front-runner (this from a column that has not seen a lick of polling in the race). So, let’s go to the dominos, shall we? Of course, it’s bad news for DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, who both wanted to run for the seat. Of course, everyone’s got a free run at it, so there’s nothing to stop DeSaulnier or Buchanan from plunging into the race. DeSaulnier already has some top endorsements, and is unlikely to back down now. It’s also bad news for Dean Florez and Alan Lowenthal, who were mounting Lite Gov campaigns for 2010. If Garamendi wins, Schwarzenegger will get to appoint a new lieutenant, and Florez or Lowenthal would have to run against an incumbent. Of course, that didn’t work out too well for Bruce McPherson, so all is not lost.

This probably makes sense for him. While Garamendi arguably had the best policy set among the gubernatorial candidates, he just wasn't gaining any traction. And his experience in Washington will be an asset in this race. I would agree that DeSaulnier stays in, considering that he cleaned up every major endorsement, but that could all be subject to change given this development. Buchanan probably stays put at this point.