2010 CA House Races Roundup

In 2007-08, I wrote a monthly series of House race roundups here in California, taking a look at the races with the highest potential to change members of Congress. This cycle, there are promises from the national Democrats that they will pay attention to a number of seats in California held by Republicans, and with the statewide races at the top of the ticket looking favorable for Democrats, and Republican registration collapsing throughout the state, in theory we should see some more movement. But many of these elements were true the past two cycles, amounting to little. Because it's a statewide officer election year, I will also do a statewide races roundup at a later time. But for now, let's take a look at the seats most likely to flip in 2010, starting with seats currently held by Democrats, few of which are in play. In addition to those "threatened" by Republicans, I'm including two seats where I've heard rumblings about primary challenges to incumbents.

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

DEMOCRATIC-HELD SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney. PVI: R+1. 2008 General: Obama 54-44. 2008 Congress: McNerney 55-45. I keep seeing this seat on Republican target lists, and the NRCC has dropped robocalls in this district, but I really think the Republicans would be wasting their money. Jerry McNerney actually slightly outperformed Barack Obama in the district in beating the hapless Dean Andal. Andal won't bother with a challenge this time around, and while former Assemblyman Guy Houston has been mentioned as a candidate, I think McNerney has solidified his position and raised enough money to scare off any challengers. SAFE DEM.

2. CA-36. Incumbent: Jane Harman. PVI: D+12. 2008 General: Obama 64-34. 2008 Congress: Harman 69-31. The recent Jane Harman scandals, documented here at Calitics, are really not the only reason she is seen as ripe for a primary challenge: there is an impression in the district that she may retire, with local electeds licking their chops. But if she does run, she will have challengers. Marcy Winograd, who got 38% of the vote in a 2006 primary with Harman, has announced an exploratory committee. And Crooks and Liars blogger John Amato, advancing a story in The Hill, has emerged to say he's considering a run. I talked to John last night and he appears to be serious. Harman has more money than God, and if she truly wants to stay in Congress she won't mind spending it, so this is a long shot. But national progressive groups think that CA-36 can do better than "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." The question is whether local activists will agree; I'm not sure they're quite there yet. SAFE DEM; LIKELY SAFE HARMAN.

3. CA-37. Incumbent: Laura Richardson. PVI: D+26. 2008 General: Obama 80-19. 2008 Congress: Richardson 75-25. If progressives really want to find a bad, vulnerable incumbent, they could look directly to the east of Jane Harman's district. Laura Richardson is a bad lawmaker, who voted for the FISA Amendments Act and other conservative pieces of legislation. What's more, she's an embarrassment to the district, having defaulted on eight houses since 2004 and, reportedly, having used her position in Congress to rescind the sale of her foreclosed home and return it to her. Her monetary acumen extends to her campaign finances. Unlike most incumbents, Richardson is currently $300,000 in debt in her campaign account. This seat is ripe for a young, fresh progressive who has a cleaner record and a better commitment to the district's needs. Nobody has yet emerged, but they should. SAFE DEM; LIKELY SAFE RICHARDSON.

REPUBLICAN-HELD SEATS

1. CA-44. Incumbent: Ken Calvert. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.5-48.6. 2008 Congress: Calvert 51-49. Bill Hedrick shocked the political world by almost beating corrupt Rep. Ken Calvert in a race that fell off of everyone's radar screen. Hedrick just announced that he's running again to finish the job, and I had a chance to chat with him at the CDP Convention in Sacramento. He said that "something is occurring in the Inland Empire" - a combination of the bad economy, demographic shifts and a general distaste for Republicans - that bodes well for his campaign. Hedrick actually won by 5% in the Riverside County portion of the district, which is where more voters reside; but he lost the southern Orange County portion by a healthy margin. The registration figures in the OC part of the district is 90%; in Riverside, it's 50%. Clearly there is potential to increase registration in Riverside and overwhelm Calvert with numbers. Hedrick is a solid antiwar progressive, who supports a modern Pecora Commission to investigate the financial crisis, real refinancing options for people facing foreclosure, robust stimulus to get the economy moving again, and an end to American occupations abroad (he has two sons and two daughters-in-law who, between them, have 10 tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan). Clearly he's going to run on Calvert's support of TARP, which should be interesting. The fear is that Hedrick won't have the funds to compete. He raised only $150,000 total last cycle, and with this race now on the radar screen, he'll need to do better. But Hedrick appears to have a plan for expanding the donor base and using his army of volunteers to make up the gap and beat Ken Calvert in 2010. LEAN REP.

2. CA-03. Incumbent: Dan Lungren. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.8. 2008 Congress: Lungren 49-44. This is a ripe opportunity in search of a Democratic candidate. In 2008 Bill Durston held Dan Lungren under 50% in a campaign that only got the attention it deserved at the last minute. Demographically speaking, more and more people in the district have registered Democratic in recent years, and if Durston was running again, he would be a top challenger. Unfortunately, Durston is unlikely to run owing to medical issues. Actvisits have tried to entice John Garamendi into abandoning his CA-10 bid and run in this district, where he's actually one of the largest landowners. But that also appears unlikely. It should be noted that there is an announced candidate here, Dr. Amerish Bera. But the hot rumor at the Convention was that Phil Angelides would enter the race, making it a matchup of former statewide gubernatorial candidates. I later heard that rumor was probably bunk. But this should happen! Angelides, who has become an evangelist on energy and climate issues, has a huge donor list he could activate, a progressive policy profile, and actually matured as a candidate (not that you would know it from the media) in 2006. He would bring name ID to this race like nobody else. It's time to draft Phil. LEAN REP.

3. CA-50. Incumbent: Brian Bilbray. PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bilbray 50-45. As you can see, Obama took this district by a decent margin, and Bilbray barely hit 50%. Francine Busby, who ran in 2004 and 2006 and then took a cycle off, has returned to run for Congress, and she had a bit of visibility at the Convention. Busby has OK name ID, but this district has always seemed to me to have a ceiling for the Democratic candidate around 45%. I'm happy to be wrong, of course, and hopefully Busby has learned from her past races and is able to break through. Of course, Bilbray is sure to resurrect the “You don't need papers for voting” comment that hurt her in a special election in 2006 (which was twisted by the right, incidentally). LIKELY REP.

4. CA-26. Incumbent: David Dreier. PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Dreier 53-40. The profile of CA-50 and CA-26 are similar. And in both, a Democratic challenger will take a third run at the incumbent. Russ Warner announced at the Red to Blue dinner that he will run again and build on his efforts against David Dreier in 2008. In a conversation with Warner, he told me about meeting David Dreier a few weeks ago for the first time. Dreier asked him, "Are you running against me again?" Warner replied, "You ran against me, David." Dreier said, "But you lost." Warner: "Oh yeah? You're the one who spent $3 million dollars. Who lost?" Indeed, Warner did succeed in draining Dreier's war chest. Unlike last cycle, Dreier comes into the race with only $700,000 cash on hand. Obviously these seats require two or three-cycle efforts, so it's good to see Warner back. And with national help, who knows? LIKELY REP.

5. CA-48. Incumbent: John Campbell. PVI: R+8. 2008 General: Obama 49.3-48.6. 2008 Congress: Campbell 56-41. John Campbell, who by the way loves him some Atlas Shrugged, is kind of a nonentity in Congress, and apparently doesn't show himself much at home either. Steve Young has done yeoman work building the party in this area in recent years. And now, Beth Krom, an Irvine City Councilwoman, will run to win this seat. Krom is battle-tested - she's had 5 races over the last decade - and she has capably performed in the largest city in the district. Krom actually outraised John Campbell in the first quarter of 2009, and she looks to build on that success. We had a nice interaction with Krom at the CDP Convention, and she led off with a classic line: "This district has the largest cluster of diverse cultures in Orange County, it's 30% Asian and East Indian, and John Campbell has never spoken to somebody who doesn't look like him." She talked about her affordable housing strategies in Irvine, and the green strategies that have won national acclaim. Folks in Orange County told me she's the best candidate they've had to go up against a Republican incumbent in years. Watch this race. LIKELY REP.

6. CA-45. Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack. PVI: R+3. 2008 General: Obama 51-47. 2008 Congress: Bono Mack 58-42. I thought Julie Bornstein really underperformed in this district in 2008, but Mary Bono Mack is kind of a slippery character. She always adds enough votes to her resume to give the appearance of moderation (sometimes by voting for right-wing motions to recommit and then voting for the final bill so it looks like she's a supporter), and given that she's married to a Floridian and lives in Washington, she rarely comes back to the district. This time around, Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet, a gay father of two, has announced a run, and he will focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs." This area shares the profile of a lot of California, with high unemployment and lots of foreclosures. Pougnet's challenge will be to actually get Bono Mack on the record. LIKELY REP.

7. CA-46. Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: McCain 50-48. 2008 Congress: Rohrabacher 53-43. Dana Rohrabacher remains crazy, but he managed to survive a major challenge from Debbie Cook in 2008. Cook has shown no indication that she will run again, and because this seat is not one of the eight "Obama Republican" races that national Democrats have targeted, it is unlikely they will offer much in recruitment if Cook looks elsewhere. Still, if Cook does change her mind, this race would move back onto the radar screen. SAFE REP.

8. CA-04. Incumbent: Tom McClintock. PVI: R+10. 2008 General: McCain 54-44. 2008 Congress: McClintock 50.3-49.7. Obviously the chances in this race rise or fall on the entry of Charlie Brown into the race. Brown was in attendance at the CDP Convention, and he publicly mulled a run at an event with Gavin Newsom in Placer County recently. So he hasn't closed his mind to the option. Meanwhile, McClintock has been as obstructionist and nutty as you'd expect. I particularly enjoyed his Baghdad Bob claim that California didn't have a water shortage. Locally, sources tell me that McClintock is not well-liked by his fellow Republican electeds, who aren't getting their phone calls returned. But it all hinges on Brown. SAFE REP.

9. CA-24. Incumbent: Elton Gallegly. PVI: R+4. 2008 General: Obama 51-48. 2008 Congress: Gallegly 58-42. This seat has been trending to the Democrats for some time, but the right candidate to challenge Elton Gallegly has yet to emerge. Last year Marta Jorgensen raised very little in her race and still took 42%. Gallegly is always a threat to retire - he actually did it in 2006 before being coaxed back - so that option remains as well. Small businessman Shawn Stern has announced so far. SAFE REP.

10. CA-25. Incumbent: Buck McKeon. PVI: R+6. 2008 General: Obama 49-48. 2008 Congress: McKeon 58-42. Much like CA-24, this expansive district his been trending Democratic. In fact, no seat has a closer registration gap that's currently held by a Republican. But the Democratic Party infrastructure just seems to be lacking out here. Jackie Conaway raised I think $10,000 total for her entire race last year. She still managed 42% of the vote against Buck McKeon. There is certainly a profile of a Democratic candidate that could attract serious votes out here. But that person does not yet exist. Meanwhile, McKeon thinks Barack Obama broke into his house, or something. SAFE REP.

CA Congressional Q1 Reports

So the first quarter of fundraising for the 2010 cycle ended, and this week the reports were filed. Swing State Project has a good roundup. Here's what I found interesting:

• In CA-48, Beth Krom had an unusually strong quarter, considering she entered the race in the middle of it. She raised $63,000 for the quarter, actually beating the incumbent, John Campbell, who raised $55,000. Now, in 2008 candidates like Nick Leibham and Debbie Cook beat their incumbent counterparts in fundraising repeatedly, but had major disadvantages in cash on hand because the incumbents had assembled war chests from prior fundraising. And that's the case here too - Campbell has $300,000 CoH, while Krom has $61,000, a 5-to-1 advantage. But to beat Campbell so early in the cycle shows a lot of potential.

• Debbie Cook, Charlie Brown and Bill Durston basically raised no money in the quarter, dampening any expectation that they will run again in their respective districts. Durston raised $9,000, but that was probably all before he hinted at dropping out due to medical troubles.

• In CA-44, Bill Hedrick may be getting national attention, but he's not raising national numbers, and if he continues to put up $14,000 for a quarter, the D-Trip will either walk away or look for another challenger. I respect the hell out of Hedrick but he's got to do better than that.

• CA-37 is absolutely ripe for a primary challenge. Noted deadbeat Laura Richardson raised a paltry $28,500, as an incumbent, and her $39,000 cash on hand is dwarfed by $363,000 in debt. We deserve better than Laura Richardson in that very blue district.

• Jerry McNerney put up a $275,000 quarter in CA-11.

• His numbers weren't spectacular, but Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet is drawing some attention for his challenge to Mary Bono Mack in CA-45. This is another "Obama Republican" district, and Pougnet, a gay father of two, has an interesting profile for the district and a proven record in the community. This one bears watching.

CA-37: Richardson declared a "public nuisance" to Dems who don't like being constantly embarrassed

Can you believe this?

First Rep. Laura Richardson was having problems making house payments, defaulting six times over eight years.

Then after a bank foreclosed on her Sacramento house and sold it at auction in May, the Long Beach Democrat made such a stink that Washington Mutual, in an unusual move, grabbed it back and returned it to her.

This week, in the latest chapter in the housing saga, the Code Enforcement Department in Sacramento declared her home a "public nuisance."

The city has threatened to fine her as much as $5,000 a month if she doesn't fix it up.

Neighbors in the upper-middle-class neighborhood complain that the sprinklers are never turned on and the grass and plants are dead or dying. The gate is broken, and windows are covered with brown paper.

"I would call it an eyesore," said Peter Thomsen, a retired bank executive who lives nearby.

I think "embarrassing" is the best word for it. Laura Richardson has no need or use for a home in Sacramento anymore, and in her letter to supporters trying to give an alibi for her recent conduct, she says that she isn't rich and doesn't have a second income to afford her lifestyle. Then why the useless home in Sac'to that's become decrepit?

If this was the only thing wrong with Richardson, it'd be enough, frankly. But the fact that she voted to sink the Fourth Amendment and provide amnesty for lawbreaking to the telecoms in the FISA bill means that her votes are as embarrassing as her home upkeep. It's really unacceptable to have her as a representative of this state, honestly.

Deadbeat

Laura Richardson hasn't paid her mortgage bills. She also hasn't paid her car bills, and she used a city-owned vehicle for months without authorization.

In October 2005, her 1999 four-door 740iL BMW had an odd vibration in the front, so she took it to Signal Hill Foreign Auto Service, according to Leo Labreche, the shop owner.

Mechanics there fixed the car and replaced some worn parts, but when Richardson picked up her vehicle, she said she didn't have the money to pay the $735 bill, Labreche said. Because Richardson was a council member, Labreche let her take the car, assuming that she was good for the money, he said.

"She had picked the car up and was going to come back and pay the bill, and she never did," Labreche said.

Labreche said he spent months leaving messages on Richardson's cell phone voice mail, then he got a collection agency involved, but still the bill went unpaid.

"I couldn't get through to her, and then when the collection agency couldn't do anything, I thought, `There's nothing I'm going to be able to do,"' Labreche said.

A month later, she apparently wrecked the front of the car, rendering it undrivable. She then abandoned the car at another auto-body shop.

The Press-Telegram then reports that one day after Richardson abandoned her wrecked BMW, she checked out a city-owned Toyota Prius "for her council business."

She returned the car - 30,000 miles later - after she had left the council.

This story has gotten the attention of the nonpartisan ethics watchdog CREW, who released a statement claiming that Richardson was a "deadbeat congresswoman." Hard to argue with that. And it looks like she's pulling strings to get the Sacramento house back and kick out the new owner.

Real estate investor James York bought Richardson's house in an upper middle-class neighborhood on May 7 for $388,000. He recorded the deed May 19. His crew has painted it, laid tile and landscaped the house, he said.

York said the lender, Washington Mutual, had contacted him to buy back the house and that he gave the bank a price. He said the next thing he knew, the lender filed a letter of rescission of the foreclosure sale June 2 with Sacramento County and asked him for the keys.

"They took the property back, and they didn't even send back the money," York said.

The investor says he plans to file a lawsuit by the end of the week against Washington Mutual and Richardson.

"It's clear what's happening is Ms. Richardson is abusing her political power and using it for her own political needs," he said. "You don't have to be smart to understand what's happening."

I've only gotten to know Sen. Jenny Oropeza after the special election (where Richardson beat her by waging a nasty, divisive campaign), but she's an excellent legislator, and I think her bad vote on the gaming compacts pales in comparison to the embarrassment of Richardson representing Democrats in California.

Richardson's House Follies

This Laura Richardson (CA-37) loan default story is growing. The Hill is reporting that she's had three homes in default and is currently renegotiating with her lender to save one of them. It seems like she's engaging in what amounts to a pyramid scheme - buying new homes with little money down, and at the same time loaning her campaigns for state Assembly and Congress tens of thousands of dollars. So the money that would be used to pay off the loan is paying for her political upward mobility.

A third home that Richardson borrowed heavily to move into in Sacramento was sold at auction earlier this month -- at a $150,000 loss to the bank that issued her the $535,000 loan. ...

Even as that was happening, ethics watchdogs were crying foul over Richardson's personal finances and questioning how she was able to lend her campaign to Congress $77,500 in the midst of multiple home loan defaults. ...

Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that Richardson loaned her campaign a total of $77,500 -- in three installments -- between June and July of 2007.

Richardson's year-end FEC filing showed that her campaign still had $331,000 worth of debt but $116,000 cash-on-hand. ...

Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said it would be reasonable for the FEC to look into the timing of the loan against the timeline of Richardson's home loan defaults.

"In situations like this it's very important for whoever loaned her the money to demonstrate that they treated her equitably, not favorably," McGehee said. "Otherwise, you're getting into a situation of a corporate underwriting of a campaign."

It was pretty clear last year, when Richardson ran a divisive, racially-toned campaign to win the Congressional seat against State Senator Jenny Oropeza, based in part on saying how this was "our" seat (referring to African-Americans), that she was potentially bad news. This confirms it. I won't defend her because these types of financial improprieties are unaceeptable. Getting behind on one loan because it's a fact of life that you need to practically go broke to win a political campaign is one thing. But this to me looks like a series of efforts to possibly use borrowed money and plow it into political activities. And that's wrong. I don't think she's in danger of losing her primary next week, but she should be.

CA-37: How Low Can You Go?

Well, Laura Richardson won her race for Congress and will represent the Long Beach area for, I gather, the next 20 years. There'll be a runoff, but that's just a formality; the Democrats in the race got close to 80% of the vote (not that there was much of a vote; turnout was about 11%, and Richardson will go to Congress with the support, in the primary at least, of 11,000 voters).

What this really shows is that you don't mess with labor. If Jenny Oropeza made a different vote in the State Senate with regard to the tribal gaming compacts, maybe she'd be headed to DC. But what dismays me is how nasty a campaign Richardson ran, and how in the end it didn't matter one bit. She continually claimed that the Congressional seat ought to go to "one of us," a not-so-subtle swipe at Oropeza's Hispanic roots (although both of them have Caucasian mothers, apparently). She also sent a sickening mailer attacking Oropeza for missing votes in the Assembly, at a time when Oropeza had liver cancer.

Ultimately, I don't think these negative attacks mattered; it was the boots on the ground from labor unions that did. But that's the problem; they DIDN'T matter. Richardson didn't pay the price for running an ugly and dishonest campaign. That, combined with the pathetic turnout, should give everyone pause. This is a low-income and low-information district. The progressive movement is nonexistent here. And the same identity politics drove the race, and labor turned a blind eye to it.

And people wonder why it's hard to take back America...

Payment For Services Rendered

I've heard of independent expenditures before, but never one that was bigger than the campaign's own war chest:

In the last two weeks, a Riverside County Indian tribe has independently spent more than $270,000 on behalf of a Democratic candidate in Tuesday's special election to fill a Long Beach area congressional seat.

The expenditures by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians greatly outweigh other donations in the relatively quiet race to replace Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, who died in April. Since June 14, Morongo has paid for door hangers, newspaper ads, mailers and phone calls to voters on behalf of Jenny Oropeza, a state senator from Long Beach.

The amount spent in the Morongo campaign — by law such expenditures cannot be made in consultation with the candidate — has exceeded the $219,000 Oropeza reported raising in direct donations for the entire campaign as of June 6. It is more than 2 1/2 times the $105,000 that Oropeza's chief competitor, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach), reported collecting by the same date.

Oropeza voted for the gaming compacts that would triple the number of slot machines at the Morongo casino, without allowing casino workers full ability to organize and collectively bargain. The compacts would also not offer much in the way of oversight into casino finances, which in a way is the whole point, since the state is supposed to receive 15-25% of the proceeds from the new slot machines, but may not be able to determine what those proceeds are.

But none of this kept Oropeza from breaking a state Senate campaign promise by voting in support of the compacts. And her reward is a quarter of a million dollars in advertising.

Incidentally, Morongo might want to double-check their voter lists.

(her opponent Laura) Richardson said she got two pieces of Morongo-paid mail at her home.

She called the Morongo expenditures "off the charts" but predicted that voters "are going to see through exactly what's going on."

Maybe, maybe not. And my sense is that voters aren't all that interested in the mass of mailers and robocalls, especially in the middle of June in a special election that will likely not garner 15% turnout. Still, it's interesting to see the lengths to which Morongo will go to pay back their supporters. If they really wanted to help Oropeza, however, they would spend money for GOTV machinery instead of ads and calls, to counter the network of labor groups that will be helping Richardson turn out her voters, mainly because of the very Morongo compacts Oropeza signed.

CA-37: GOTV Weekend

The primary election to replace Juanita Millender-McDonald is next Tuesday, June 26. Both main campaigns, State Sen. Jenny Oropeza and Assemblywoman Laura Richardson, have released internal polls showing them in the lead; however, both polls are tight enough to make this a very close race. Oropeza has about twice as much money for the final days.

There's not much of an air war going on, but the mailers are fast and furious. And Richardson continues to engage in not-so-subtle identity politics.

A crowd of nearly 100 people heard State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D., Carson-LB), a polished public speaker with 19 years of elective experience, become audibly emotional, her voice at one point seemingly approaching tears, while retaining her composure to complete her closing statement in emphatic tones. To hear this, click here.

The Senator's reaction came after fellow Democrat candidate George Parmer, Jr. ("I'm a truck driver, a working man, not a politician") said that at a candidate forum a day earlier, someone [not a candidate] suggested that he and other less well funded candidates should drop out of the race in favor of a candidate who could win. Mr. Parmer interpreted this to mean defeating a Hispanic candidate [Sen. Oropeza] to benefit a Black candidate...which he likened to returning to the "road to segregation." To hear his statement, click here.

Following Mr. Parmer and Senator Oropeza, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D., Carson-LB) delivered her closing statement, reiterating her stance that the Congressional seat held by the late Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald (D., Carson-LB) should be held by someone from "our community." Assemblywoman Richardson indicated the phrase means someone with a working class background reflective of the district, along with the legislative experience to do the job. "I'm not speaking about race. I'm talking about respect," Assemblywoman Richardson said. To hear this, click here.

I don't know what the outcome will be, but progressive politics suffer when campaigns become a race about "respect" and identity and street cred. And I sense this is all coming from one particular candidate.

King-Harbor on the road to shutdown

You never know when the traditional media will latch on to a story, but they've certainly raised the case of L.A.'s King-Harbor Medical Center to new heights by publicizing the tragic story of a woman who died while waiting in the lobby of the emergency room while hospital staff casually walked by her. It's become a powerful symbol of our broken health care system. In fact, King-Harbor has been troubled almost since the moment it opened in 1972, and the tales of woe emanating from the medical center are numerous.

Among the cases cited:

• One patient in King-Harbor's emergency room told a triage nurse on April 30 that he was seeing "aliens and devils" and that he was thinking about drinking bleach to commit suicide. He was left in the lobby for more than an hour and not seen by a physician for almost seven hours. A mental health evaluation was not completed for 17 hours after he arrived, according to the federal report.

At that time, the patient denied being suicidal and was discharged without receiving treatment.

• A female patient went to the emergency room on March 8 complaining of two weeks of stomach pain. She said she had nausea and rated her pain as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. "The patient identified that the pain she was experiencing was constant and that nothing provided relief."

Even so, she was given no treatment to alleviate pain or reduce her fever. Two hours later, she was checked again and again offered no treatment. She was not seen by a physician until nearly seven hours after she arrived. "The patient experienced severe pain throughout her [emergency stay]," the report said. Eleven hours after she arrived, she went to surgery.

• A patient went to the emergency room on May 11 complaining of spotting during pregnancy. An hour later, a triage nurse saw her, gave her a pregnancy test and sent her back to the waiting area. When staff called her name two hours later, she had left without being seen.

Three days later, the same woman returned to the hospital with complaints of vaginal bleeding and severe pain. A nurse didn't evaluate how much she was bleeding and had her wait four hours without pain medication. During an ultrasound, she had a miscarriage and was discharged a short time later.

So today, state regulators have moved to close the hospital. But is that the right thing to do?

Both the governor and a portion of the LA County Board of Supervisors seem resigned to King-Harbor's closure:

Two of the five members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors said Thursday that they now support closing the hospital without delay.

"I think it's over for us," Supervisor Gloria Molina said. "I'm in fact terrified that somebody else might be hurt or neglected or abused at Martin Luther King hospital."

Supervisor Mike Antonovich agreed. "The time has come to put patients' lives before incompetent employees or political agendas," he said.

The state's decision, which was approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is subject to appeal. That process could take six months to a year.

So for the next year, King-Harbor would remain open until the process is complete. But what would be in place in the wake of any closure? In the CA-37 debate, the district which includes the area around King-Harbor, almost all of the candidates stressed the fact that there are few options for the low-income residents that King-Harbor serves. Most of them use public transportation and can't afford an ambulance to take them to the next closest hospital. And the trauma centers in the area are already overburdened, and another 47,000 ER visits per year (the approximate average at King-Harbor) could create the very problem regulators are seeking to avoid. If there is an extended, year-long process to close King-Harbor, plans MUST be made to provide for some replacement access for the citizens who would be left with practically no alternative should they become sick or injured. Community advocates are saying the same thing.

"We are playing with not only fire, we have gasoline in the other hand," said Lark Galloway Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils. "That emergency room, you can't let that go. Closure to me is not an option."

Finally, this really stresses the need for a better safety net for all citizens than a crippled emergency room system that acts as a faux-universal care apparatus. People deserve better than this. They need to have access to preventative care instead of going to the ER for a fever. King-Harbor's problems are part of the larger health care crisis in America.

CA-37: Two-Day-Late Debateblogging

I hope you guys appreciate me, because I managed to get through the entire 90-minute debate for the June 26 primary in the 37th Congressional District to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald held on Thursday night. 11 Democrats were on stage, and because they were all given 2 minute opening statements, the debate really didn't cover much ground. But actually, the fact that the moderator was a clueless local news anchor from LA's ABC7 who had virtually no connection to the district was a good thing, as the persistent issues of race played out in the media in the campaign were fairly nonexistent in the debate.

Let's take a look at each candidate's opening statement:

Ed Wilson: former mayor of Signal Hill, a small city in the district. He immediately went after the whole ethnicity issue, saying "this is not a black seat or a white seat or a Hispanic seat, it's your seat."

Peter Matthews: He's the PDA-endorsed candidate who has run for office many times, including challenging Millender-McDonald in a primary in 2006 (and getting 10,000 votes). Matthews is running on the progressive issues on getting us out of Iraq, closing the inequality divide, providing single-payer universal health care, and restoring tax fairness.

Jenny Oropeza: The state Senator was strong on the war, saying "we need to get out of Iraq now." She talked about the environment, health care, revising NCLB, and needing to "turn around trade agreements" that sacrifice American job (that was cheering). She closed with "You know my record," playing off her experience serving the area.

Laura Richardson: Assemblywoman Richardson is also running on her record. She kind of messed up her move from talking about Iraq to domestic issues, saying "I want to talk about the war in America" and then claiming that Al Qaeda is running rampant (I think she meant in Waziristan, not Long Beach). Didn't seem like much of a public speaker.

Valerie McDonald: The late Congresswoman's daughter talked about her ties to the area, the need to keep families together in the black community, and the importance of education.

Bill Grisolia: He's a longtime employee of Long Beach Memorial Health Center, so universal health care was one of his themes. But he was at his most powerful discussing the war in Iraq, and his desire to cut funding except to bring our troops home. He also tried to blunt the experience argument by saying "What have the electeds done for you?"

Mr. Evans: I forget his first name and it doesn't matter. He's a far-right immigrant-hating loon who somehow was let into the Democratic primary. He proudly namechecked Lou Dobbs in the first sentence of his statement and called himself a closed-borders candidate. There is a sense in the black community that immigrants are in competition with them for low-paying jobs, but this was the most extreme out-and-out black bigot I've seen.

Alicia Ford: Spent her entire statement talking about something she did a decade ago that ABC7 didn't cover, which made her bad. Also actually said "In Compton, they are without... a lot of things." Stirring.

Lee Davis: Her whole statement decried the front-runner assumptions of the media, and said that "if the top three had any self-respect they'd leave this stage right now" to allow for equal access, and then actually WAITED for them to leave the stage. They, er, didn't.

George Parmer: a truck driver from Long Beach, the first to actually call for impeachment and call out the Democratic leadership for their sell-out on capitulation in Iraq.

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

Albert Robles: a write-in candidate in a 17-candidate field. Best of luck to you. I mean, if you can't get the papers in on time...

The first question was on Iraq, and pretty much the entire field is committed to getting out now, so on that big issue, there's not a lot of daylight and everyone is on the right side. Peter Matthews went so far as to suggest that there ought to be impeachment investigations into lying us into war, and announced his support for HR 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney. The moderator actually did the "raise your hands" thing on the impeachment question, and I think 8 or 9 candidates raised their hands, including Jenny Oropeza (it was a wide shot on a postage stamp video window, so I could be wrong). Mr. Evans, of course, kept calling the President the "commander-in-chief" and yelled at everybody for undermining him in a time of war. I think there's a place for him in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

On Iran, Jenny Oropeza has sadly bought into the bullshit rhetoric that they are a threat to our national security and that all options have to be on the table regarding their nuclear program. She also said that she thinks diplomacy has failed because this President is incapable of it. Only Alicia Ford understood that Iran is not an imminent threat, but then she went on about how China is a threat to this country and how in Compton they don't have "things."

Transportation and port security was a major topic, with the Port of Long Beach in the district. Most candidates supported efforts to green the ports, including State Sen. Alan Loewenthal's $30 container fee for clean air proposal. Peter Matthews pressed the need for public transit to aid a cleaner environment. Valerie McDonald was good on this issue as well. George Parmer, the trucker, maintained that many truckers own their equipment and can't afford to modernize their trucks, and so some of the funds from the container fee should trickle down to them. I didn't see much difference here.

A big topic was the events at MLK/Harbor Medical Center's ER, which has been in the news lately, as a woman fell dead in the waiting room while the hospital staff did nothing. Most of the candidates believed MLK/Harbor should remain open and would support the $200 million in federal funding that goes into it annually, though Ed Wilson and Valerie McDonald stressed accountability. Laura Richardson said a platitude like "this situation must be dealt with" but didn't explain how. Peter Matthews mentioned that he organized a picket at MLK/Harbor 2 years ago and the only result was that they cut beds in half. Bill Grisolia stressed the need for cooperation in the community, perhaps nurses college training partnerships to get more staff in there. Many stressed the need for universal healthcare so that poor people aren't relying on the ER as their last resort.

On a question about Wal-Mart, Oropeza proudly claimed that she fought against a Wal-Mart in Long Beach, and now there's an Albertson's there! (Does she not read the news about the looming grocery strike and how Albertson's in particular is trying to screw their workers again?) The major candidates were in agreement on this, though only Valerie McDonald mentioned that workers ought to have the right to organize. I take it she'd support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In final thoughts, Oropeza said she wouldn't support the current immigration bill but didn't say why, George Parmer advocated a national paper ballot because "votes are being stolen," and Ed Wilson wanted to stop Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds. Laura Richardson took a cheap shot when she mentioned some local shooting and claimed she was the only candidate there (what, if you run for Congress, you have to know where the shootings are?).

My impression is that the candidates, by and large, are fairly progressive, as befits the district. Oropeza and Richardson are politicians who are playing some political games. Oropeza doesn't seem all that informed on a couple crucial issues, and Richardson is clearly running a "vote for me, I'm one of you" race. I was impressed with Valerie McDonald and Bill Grisolia. Peter Matthews certainly has all of his progressive chops down, and it will be interesting to see if he can leverage the grassroots energy in Southern California from PDA and translate it into votes.

CA-37: Richardson up in Internal Poll, and More Bitterness

I bring you this internal poll from the Laura Richardson campaign showing her with a 9-point lead in her Congressional primary against Jenny Oropeza and 15 other candidates.  Richardson need only beat the other 10 Dems on the ballot to get into a runoff, where the Democrat will be very likely to win in this deep blue district.

Laura Richardson (D) 25%

Jenny Oropeza (D) 16%

Valerie McDonald (D) 7%

John M. Kanaley (R) 5%

Teri Ramirez (R) 2%

Ed Wilson (D) 2%

Other Democrats 4%

Other Republicans 2%

Minor Party Candidates 1%

Undecided 35%

That's a heavy amount of undecideds, so this obviously isn't over.  (UPDATE: As noted in the comments, the margin of error on this poll is 4.9%, which makes this race even closer than I mentioned it probably was considering the number of undecideds.)

It does seem to be getting even more tense, as tempers flared between Richardson and Oropeza after a candidate forum last week. 

Assemblywoman Richardson told the Compton forum:

Assemblywoman Richardson: I'm going to fight for our community...This is about someone who says that no one can take our seat from us without us fighting every bit of the way for it. [applause] This is our community. This is our seat. And let me tell you something: why is it that with redistricting, Compton was removed out of the 55th [Carson-LB Assembly district]? We need people who want Compton, who will represent Compton and who will do everything humanly possible to make sure all of the people in our community are represented and taken care of.

The order of closing speakers had Assemblywoman Richardson speaking after Sen. Oropeza...meaning Oropeza wasn't able to respond on mike to Richardson's closing. But following Assemblywoman Richardson's closing, the two apparently had some words off-mike (inaudible to the audience) which began to careen into a verbal brouhaha until others intervened.

A few minutes later, the two Democrats declined to join hands for a collective photo. When the forum ended, Sen. Oropeza left the room without comment, her jaw set and her eyes focused on the door. Assemblywoman Richardson was surrounded by supporters.

The two will meet again with the other Democratic candidates at a debate on Thursday at Cabrillo High School in Long Beach.  Richardson appears to me to be using the rhetoric of "this race is not about ethnicity" while making the race entirely about ethnicity.  We'll see if this continues Thursday night.

CA House Races Roundup - June 2007

Surprisingly enough, considering it's 17 months out, there's actually been some measure of news in the California delegation, most of it pretty good for Democrats. Let's take a look at the top pickup opportunities for Democrats, as well as the top hold races. We'll start with the seats that may be contested (there are only two):

1) CA-37: This is the open seat vacated by the late Juanita Millender-McDonald, which will have an open primary on June 26 and a general election (if nobody gets 50%) a couple months thereafter. There are debates this week (Friday) and next (June 14), but so far this has been a battle of endorsements. The CA Democratic Party and the League of Conservation Voters have backed State Senator Jenny Oropeza; the Legislative Black Caucus and the CA Federation of Labor of LA County have backed Assemblywoman Laura Richardson. I do believe that Richardson's endorsements probably mean more on the ground; of course, there's also Millender-McDonald's daughter, Valerie McDonald, who some believe will "split the black vote" and hand the primary to Oropeza. This is a very safe Democratic seat, so the winner of the primary on the Democratic side is all but assured to be the next Congressman.

2) CA-11 (McNerney): Antiwar advocates were pleased with Rep. McNerney's vote on the Iraq funding bill. Former Assemblyman Dean Andal has announced that he'll run for the seat. Obviously, the first re-elect is the toughest, so McNerney will have a fight on his hands here, whether against Andal or somebody else. However, I don't think that attacking McNerney by attacking Nancy Pelosi, which the NRCC has done in recent radio ads, is going to work, considering the Speaker is more popular than Bush as well as previous House Speakers like Newt Gingrich.

OK, on to the Republicans. I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also adding the "Boxer number," an excellent system for measuring districts given to me by a reader whose name escapes me. Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle). Last month: 1. Boxer number: 40. John Doolittle's stayed out of the courthouse thus far, but he's clearly damaged goods and the GOP knows it. A number of prominent Republicans have made waves about challenging Doolittle in the primary, including Air Force reservist Eric Egland, a former Doolittle supporter. Schwarzenegger flack and former Bush-Cheney campaign guy Steve Schmidt apparently has his support. In the article, he calls Charlie Brown a "Cindy Sheehan Democrat," which is ludicrous on several levels, but undeniably more effective in that reliably Republican district than we may think. Doolittle believes that he still has majority support, but then again he thinks rogue Democrats in the Justice Department are conspiring against him. Charlie Brown still has a better chance against Doolittle than a fresh face.

2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. Not much new to report here. David Dreier is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and his name comes up on occasion, but he's been pretty mum about his low fundraising totals. Like almost all Republicans, he voted to fund Bush's war, saying "We cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made." I would think a decent campaign could make some hay out of that remark. Declared Democratic opponent Russ Warner has sent out fundraising letters, but hasn't been incredibly visible at this early stage.

3) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 9. Boxer number: 43. Obviously, the big story is Robert "Douchebag of Liberty" Novak's leak (he's used to those) that Jerry Lewis won't seek re-election, which would make this an open seat. Of course, it would still lean to the GOP in this fairly red district, but an open seat will at least give Democrats the opportunity to find a candidate and force the other side to put in some resources. Lewis' people have denied the report that he's retiring. I previously speculated that Lewis may be wanting out of the Congress to defend himself in a long-dormant corruption investigation, now that the hiring of a new US Attorney for Los Angeles, a fiercely independent former DA, is imminent. We're still waiting for attorney Tim Prince to jump into this race.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 4. Boxer number: 47. Novak also mentioned Elton Gallegly in his report:

District 24: Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) decided to retire last cycle for health reasons, only to change his mind at the last minute and run. California Republicans continue to wonder what his '08 plans will be. The congressman may not be sure himself.

Gallegly's probably safe if he runs, but nobody really knows what will happen. An open seat means a pretty good pickup opportunity relative to the others.

5) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 48. What surprised me was that the Boxer number was so high in a district everyone calls "hard right." Brian Bilbray has been demagoguing the immigration issue of late, which for all I know works in this district. Michael Wray, the former Francine Busby staffer who looks to be running here, hasn't been very visible this month.

6) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 41. As reported at Trash Dirty Gary, Miller has tried to shift the blame for his ethical troubles by blaming the cities and counties he represents, in a roundabout way. This tactic was blasted in an op-ed by the Daily Bulletin.

Caught in the fallout from recommending legislation two years ago that would advance the projects of a major campaign contributor, Rep. Gary Miller now says he plans to tighten the process.

Only instead of dealing directly with that issue, the Brea Republican is going to start requiring that all cities and counties that seek federal aid from his office certify that the request will benefit the community, and not a specific individual, organization or business entity.

That's good. We would hope that government agencies making appropriations requests would be doing so on behalf of public constituents.

But Miller's attempt to turn things around by putting the certifiction burden on cities and counties seems like political subterfuge, at best.

People are on to this guy. Now there just needs to be a dynamic candidate who can breathe some life into the Democratic organizations in that district and force Miller to play defense. Stay tuned...

7) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. Mary Bono continues to focus on tangential issues while voting in lockstep with the Republican leadership. The Boxer number here suggests that there's an opportunity if there's a good candidate. None has yet materialized.

8) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 10. Boxer number: 45. Ken Calvert got some negative publicity when he took over for John Doolittle on the House Appropriations Committee, despite his own corruption issues. Conservative blog RedState vowed to wage war on him, but that hasn't seemed to go anywhere. So we'll see if this gains any traction.

9) CA-25 (McKeon). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 45. Not much to report here at all. If Buck McKeon runs again, he's very likely to win.

10) CA-52 (open seat). Last month: 7. Boxer number: 44. Despite it being an open seat, I don't expect to see anyone beat Duncan Hunter's son while he's serving in Iraq. He might not actually live in the district (scroll down and you see that Hunter for President press releases describe his son as living in Boise, Idaho), but that hasn't stopped anyone else, like Brian Bilbray, from winning.

CA-37: Tempers Flare

I know, another post about the open-seat Long Beach-area race that essentially looks at identity politics. But this is pretty interesting. The Congressional Black Caucus will not endorse a candidate in the race, which includes two high-profile black candidates, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and neophyte politician Valerie McDonald, daughter of the late Juanita Millender-McDonald. Apparently, it got heated within the CBC:

The decision, in part, stems from an internal political feud between two of California's most visible black members of Congress: Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Diane Watson, who split over who should get the Caucus' backing in the June 26 special election. In the end, the Caucus declined to endorse either one in the Long Beach-area race. Waters favors Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and Watson supports Valerie McDonald, the daughter of the late congresswoman. The dispute over the endorsement was marked by heated exchanges involving Waters and Watson.

The Congressional Black Caucus' decision was in sharp contrast to the state Legislature's nine-member Black Caucus, which endorsed Richardson.

Diane Watson is one of the few California legislators to back McDonald, and she was enough to get the CBC not to endorse. I still think the California Federation of Labor support for Richardson will ultimately be crucial, but the CBC would have been a nice capper as well.

I'll be covering this race a bit more in my Congressional roundup (look for it next week), but I'd say right now, Richardson has a slight edge over State Sen. Jenny Oropeza because of the labor endorsement and the fact that turnout will be low.

CA-37: Already As Ugly As Can Be

Read Juls. At some point we're going to have to get a grip on this persistent identity politics. If someone has an antipathy to GLBT issues and GLBT legislation, that's fair game in politics. But the whole tenor of this campaign, with it's explicit appeals to racial unity, is really the antithesis of what we should be talking about in 2007 in a Congressional race. I don't think you're going to hear a policy discussion between now and June 26.

(If you don't want to go read, Sheila Kuehl called Laura Richardson homophobic, while the African American community wants Valerie McDonald out of the race so blacks can unite to defeat a Latina. It's unseemly, and it's only a few days into it)