State Senate Passes Tougher Renewable Energy Standard

SB14, which would require utilities to receive 33% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, passed the state Senate today. This would be a more stringent standard than the federal bill introduced today by Henry Waxman, which called for 25% from renewables by 2025. So this is a very aggressive standard that was championed by Darrell Steinberg.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said the bill, which now goes to the Assembly, would help pave the way to a more environmental friendly future.

"The green economy is the economy of the future," Steinberg said. "The environment and the economy go together."

Mod Squadder and corporate-friendly Sen. Rod Wright, along with Lou Correa, voted no. For Wright, who said he is "concerned that this bill is moving too fast," the vote is particularly inexcusable, as his district is witness to the ravages of greenhouse gas-emitted pollution. The final vote was 21 aye, 16 no. Tony Strickland, who pretended to be an environmentalist during his campaign, predictably took a walk on the vote. What a coward.

Capitol Weekly has more. This is a big win for Sen. Steinberg, and while the bill is certain to be amended (the "cap and trade" style appearance of "renewable energy credits" that utilities can pass to one another to get inside the 33% standard seems ripe for gaming the system), a strong claim on a very progressive priority gives us hope that progressives won't be stiffed for this entire session.

In a related development, Rep. Jerry McNerney introduced three very good energy bills at the federal level, including the Smart Grid Advancement Act, which would develop a smart electrical grid that could help reduce energy use during peak times, the Vehicles for the Future Act, which would build out the electrical infrastructure for plug-in hybrids and EVs, and the GREEN Act, which would provide $100 million in grants for developing career and technical training in green jobs. The three bills are explained here.

Campaign Update: CA-03, CA-04, CA-11, CA-45, CA-46

A lot to cover today.

General: I suspended the monthly ratings because it was ridiculously time-consuming and better to get the information out more timely, but in case you're wondering, here is my impression of the top targets in California for the Congressional races as we stand with 22 days out.

1) CA-04: Lean Dem. Charlie Brown has been ahead in multiple polls and actually has a ground game, unlike Tom McClintock.
2) CA-03: Tilt Repub. Bill Durston's poll showing the race as a dead heat raised a lot of eyebrows. Unfortunately people discovered this race too late, but by Election Day I'll bet that the registration numbers are virtually tied and there will not be an immediate call. The smart money for progressives wanting to impact a race should go to Dr. Durston against Dan Lungren.
3) CA-46: Tilt Repub. Debbie Cook is replicating the Loretta Sanchez strategy of ground mobilization that she used to defeat B-1 Bob Dornan. We'll see if she can pull it off against Crazy Dana Rohrabacher.
4) CA-26: Tilt Repub. Russ Warner has been doing a decent enough job and there's a bit of outside support, but David Dreier has a wall of money.
5) CA-45: Lean Repub. This race has also been under the radar, but the district is either #1 or #2 in the COUNTRY for foreclosures, and affordable housing expert Julie Bornstein can stand to benefit from movement toward Democratic solutions on the economy in her race against Mary Bono Mack.
6) CA-50: Lean Repub. This is the permanent tease district in California, and despite Nick Leibham's efforts to shake up the race, I'm not seeing Brian Bilbray taken down right now, especially because he's likely to whip up populist support in his base with his vote against the bailout.
7) CA-52: Likely Repub. It was always going to be an uphill battle for Mike Lumpkin in his race against Duncan Hunter's son running for Duncan Hunter's old seat. I'd like to see better signs here, but I'm coming up empty.

I rate everything else as Safe Republican at the moment. I'll do a legislative targeting in the next campaign update. Now, to the news:

• CA-03: Faced with a tie race, Dan Lungren's campaign has decided that the smart thing to do is name calling.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren's (R-Gold River) congressional campaign said Bill Durston was mischaracterizing Lungren's absence from a candidate forum last weekend.

On top of that, he referred to Durston, a Democrat from Gold River, as a "knucklehead."

They actually don't believe Durston's viable. Hilariously, Lungren gave out a bunch of tickets to a Bonnie Raitt concert in the district, and during the show Raitt endorsed Durston and urged people to vote.

This would be such a delicious upset, and the contours of it remind me exactly of Carol Shea-Porter's improbable victory in New Hampshire in 2006.

• CA-04: The competitors actually showed up at a 4th District debate last week, and Charlie Brown got off a great line:

In the heavily Republican district, where he narrowly lost to Doolittle two years ago, Brown faced an audience question over whether he would "stand up to Nancy Pelosi" and her "liberal positions." [...]

While Brown said he disagreed with the Democratic house speaker from San Francisco on rights of gun owners, McClintock went after him.

"This issue of marching in lockstep with her on every major issue in the campaign speaks to the fact that she has targeted your congressional district as one of those seats they want to cement a permanent Democratic majority," McClintock said. "And I think they're counting on your vote, Charlie."

Brown, a district resident in Roseville, answered back with a poke at McClintock for running in a district 400 miles north of his Senate seat in Thousand Oaks.

"Tom, if you want to run against Nancy Pelosi (in San Francisco)," Brown said, "that district is actually closer than this one to your home."

• CA-45: Julie Bornstein, on the other hand, debated an empty chair recently in Rancho Mirage. Mary Bono Mack has refused any effort to get her to debate Bornstein. Perhaps she's busy with her husband in Florida.

Bornstein came prepared. When she was given the opportunity to address the absentee incumbent in her closing remarks, Bornstein came out firing.

"This is a job interview," she said, asking Bono Mack, "How is it that you feel that you do not need to meet with your constituents?"

"There is no sense of entitlement here," Bornstein told voters, "that somehow your vote is already predetermined, that you owe it to a party or a person. One of the first lessons I learned when I became a working person is that you have to show up. You have to be here. And my question to my opponent is, where are you?"

They tracked Bono Mack down at a party during the forum. Bornstein, who this weekend welcomed Barbara Boxer in for a fundraiser, parried a Republican attempt to protest that event in much the same way, by saying that she "welcomed debate." Often these debate-baiting tactics aren't that successful, but I don't think this is a good year to be an absentee incumbent.

• CA-11: Another duo got together for a little chat this weekend, Dean Andal and Jerry McNerney. There's some interesting stuff in there - Andal apparently thinks it's "immoral" to support a safe and responsible withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But what's more interesting is that Andal finally, two weeks after the bailout, came up with an opinion on it. He was opposed, in case you were wondering. Talk about political cowardice, waiting that long to express an opinion.

• CA-46: Debbie Cook has a new ad.



I have to say that I kind of like it. The "asteroids" thing is kind of tacked on, but the rest of it is sufficiently hard-hitting and affixes Dana Rohrabacher to the problems created by 8 long years of Republican failure. The Cook campaign has Jim Dean from DFA coming into the district for a fundraising breakfast and precinct walk this Sunday. More information here.

Campaign Update: CA-11, AD-80, SD-19, AD-15, AD-30, LA Board of Supes

Here's what's happening on the campaign trail.

• CA-11: Apparently trying to win some kind of award for the worst attack website in history, Jon Fleischman of the Flash Report (a terribly designed website in its own right) has put together One Term Is Enough, in all of its way-too-large masthead, ridiculously-spare with no action items or columns, design out of Quark X-Press glory. Man, that's ugly. And I think the focus on Jerry McNerney's earmarks, given the summer of scandal that Dean Andal has lived through which is entirely about a construction contract with a community college (if he was in Congress, that would be, basically, an earmark), is kind of silly. Meanwhile, McNerney is up with his first ad of the cycle, focusing on his work on behalf of troops and veterans.

• AD-80: As soyinkafan noted, Manuel Perez and Gary Jeandron had a debate where Jeandron stated his support for a tax increase in Imperial County. That's not likely to help him with the conservative base, but clearly Jeandron understands that he has to move to left if he has any chance to win this seat. The Palm Springs Desert Sun has a debate report here.

• SD-19: Tony Strickland's latest endorsement is Erin Brockovich, of all people. However, this could be less of a reach across the aisle as it appears.

Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt got Strickland's Democratic opponent Hannah-Beth Jackson on the phone, who said she was "a little surprised" by Brockovich backing her opponent.

While Brockovich says she is a Democrat in the ad, she writes on her blog that she's ready to leave the party and become an independent.

"I am ready to turn because both parties are acting foolish and judgmental and attacking," she writes.

She also has kind words for GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

"I am proud to be a member of the same Strong Woman's Club that Sarah Palin is in." Brockovich writes.

• AD-15: As has been noted, Joan Buchanan released her first campaign ad of the cycle. Her opponent Abram Wilson responded with his own ad, also biographical in nature, and his campaign has questioned the Buchanan spot and her commitment to fiscal responsibility. I suppose signing a "no-tax" pledge is the height of responsibility, then.

• AD-30: We were all expecting it, and now Nicole Parra has officially endorsed Republican Danny Gilmore in the election to replace her. This is a family fight moved into the political sphere - the Parra-Florez feud is well-known.

Parra's support of Danny Gilmore angered Democratic Party leaders, but comes as no surprise because she has been praising Gilmore for months.

"I will endorse Danny Gilmore in the near future and I will campaign for him and do commercials," Parra said in an interview. Gilmore, a retired California Highway Patrol officer from Hanford, is running against Democrat Fran Florez, mother of state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a longtime Parra rival.

• LA Board of Supes: Turns out that not only is Bernard Parks turning to Republicans to help him get elected over progressive State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, but for ten years he was a member of the American Independent Party (!).

According to voter registration forms certified by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder:

Bernard Parks left the Democratic Party and registered as an American Independent on February 12, 1992 – just in time to miss the opportunity to vote for President Bill Clinton.

He registered again as an American Independent on August 9, 1996.

President George Bush was elected in November 2000 – but Parks still wouldn’t become a Democrat for nearly a year and a half.

Parks was fired as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department on April 9, 2002. Shortly thereafter, he began to prepare to run for Los Angeles City Council, and re-registered as a Democrat on May 30, 2002. Less than a year later, he was elected to the City Council.

That is very strange, especially for an African-American to sign up with a party which is the legacy of George Wallace.

CA-11: Republicans Displeased About The Efforts of Their "Golden Boy"

It's hard to overstate how pathetic national Republicans have been so far this cycle. Some of their top challengers can't get on the ballot, and the leader of their campaign efforts in the Senate said recently that keeping the Democrats to a gain of eight seats would be a moral victory.

Now there's news about Dean Andal, one of the few challengers Republicans are counting on nationwide, the guy who's supposedly working hard to take down Rep. Jerry McNerney. Only he raised a paltry $11,000 in the pre-primary filing period, and now Congressional Republicans are worried that their golden boy is made of iron pyrite.

Dean Andal, recruited by the GOP with great fanfare to challenge freshman Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) in California's 11th district, is now coming under attack from Republicans in Washington, D.C., for running what they contend is a flawed campaign.

Andal, a former state Assemblyman, is facing increasing criticism for his fundraising and general campaign strategy, with the grumbling emanating from Republicans in the consulting and lobbying communities. Privately, Republicans on Capitol Hill are also expressing concern.

The handful of sources interviewed for this story on Tuesday declined to discuss their concerns on the record. But all are Washington, D.C.-based Republican strategists who had until recently been singing Andal's praises and are intimately familiar with the GOP-leaning 11th district.

"I think the fundamentals are there to pull this off," said one GOP operative. "But Andal still has to run a fundamentally sound race. He hasn't done that so far."

At least he's making all the right hires. Andal's top campaign strategist is Richard Temple. He was last seen as the top strategist to Doug "I Don't Know How To Use A Ballot" Ose, who got smoked in the 4th District primary by Tom McClintock after spending millions of his own personal fortune. Andal won't even have that kind of scratch to work with when he gets pounded in the fall.

This is my favorite quote:

Andal's critics insist that he is not doing enough to win, particularly in the current political environment.

"He's dialing it in," said a native Californian and Republican operative who is now based in D.C. "He's got the attitude of a Member of Congress. He doesn't have the attitude of a challenger fighting to get elected in his district."

Hilarious.

CA House Races Roundup - Post-Primary Edition 6/6/08

Well, the votes are in, the matchups are set, and so I thought it was time for a baseline roundup of where I think the California House races stand as of now. The main pieces of information that are causing me to reset my expectations are the primary results, the April 1-May 15 fundraising numbers and the new registration numbers from the Secretary of State's office. You can track all three yourself:

Primaries
FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)
Voter registration by Congressional district.

That said, let's take a look, starting with the one threatened Democratic seat.

(A note: I'm going to start a state legislative roundup as well)

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney. Challenger: Dean Andal. Cook number: R+3. % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%. DCCC defended. Good news and bad news out of this race. The good news is that Dean Andal can't seem to raise any money - just $11,000 in the pre-primary filing period. The bad news is that Andal got about 900 more votes in his uncontested primary than McNerney did in his. McNerney seemed to have a lot of trouble attracting votes in San Joaquin County, which brought back more votes than any county in the district. While the NRCC and RNC will clearly be gunning for McNerney, the Barack Obama factor is certainly going to help him, as well has his incumbency status. So it's not time to pull the alarm just yet. But McNerney does have some work to do.


REPUBLICAN SEATS

I'm going to do three tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04. Last month: 1. Open seat. Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown. Repub. challenger: Tom McClintock. PVI #: R+11. % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7. DCCC targeted. Well, the battle is set. Tom McClintock, the Alan Keyes of California, came out of his divisive primary triumphant, and now Charlie Brown has an opponent. The Brown campaign released polls showing him leading McClintock in a head-to-head matchup. Steve Weigand isn't yet willing to bet the farm on a Brown pickup, but he recognizes the Roseville Democrat's strength against the carpetbagging Republican from Thousand Oaks. That Brown was able to get 42,000-plus votes against token competition on Tuesday shows that he has an energized activist base. Peter Hecht has a good primer on the state of the race. Expect Brown to hammer the message of Patriotism Above Partisanship against his knee-jerk wingnut conservative opponent. Also, McClintock is broke after a costly primary and has a lot of catching up to do financially.

2. CA-26. Last month: 2. Incumbent: David Dreier. Challenger: Russ Warner. PVI #: R+4. % Dem. turnout: 50.2. DCCC targeted. Russ Warner avenged his earlier loss to Cynthia Matthews in 2006 by winning handily on Tuesday, 67%-33%. His turnout was not great, however (just 14,000 votes). David Dreier got 74% of the vote, not great for an incumbent, and turnout was low district-wide. Warner has been stepping up his game with a Web ad about Dreier's frequent trips abroad and a companion site, Frequent Flyer Dreier. My gut feel is that this is not an effective line of attack, especially when the easiest one is tying Dreier, a member of the House Republican Leadership, to George Bush and a failed conservative agenda. I think there's enough interest in this seat that such a message will get out there, however. But Warner needs to improve on his June performance. The new registration numbers are moving in Warner's favor, however.

Second Tier

3. CA-45. Last month: 4. Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack. Challenger: Julie Bornstein. PVI #: R+3. % Dem. turnout: 51.3. Bornstein easily bested two challengers and won her race on Tuesday with just over 60% of the vote. Adding up the Dem v. GOP vote you get about 22,000 Dems and 33,000 Republicans, which isn't great. But I feel Bornstein has some advantages. Being an affordable housing advocate at a time when foreclosures are at an all-time high gives her authority on an important issue. This article explaining her support for the Foreclosure Prevention Act is an example. Manuel Perez' win in AD-80, which partially overlaps the district, will be helpful too, especially if they engage in a campaign to register voters in the underperforming eastern regions of Riverside County like the Coachella Valley. There's a lot of room to run here, and it's wide open for Democrats to exploit. The registration numbers show just a 19,000-vote difference between Democrats and Republicans, and a dearth of registered voters relative to other districts. This is an opportunity. Bornstein also had pretty solid fundraising in the pre-primary filing (around $40K in 6 weeks).

4. CA-46. Last month: 6. Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher. Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6. % Dem. turnout: 47.2. There's a great profile of this race in today's Los Angeles Times.

Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook has survived a few long-shot political battles. But the Debbie-versus-Goliath matchup she's facing this fall is her biggest gamble yet.

The popular Surf City official is the Democratic hope to unseat GOP incumbent Rep. Dana Rohrabacher -- seeking his 11th term -- in an underdog campaign some observers believe may succeed.

Read the whole thing. I need to see Cook's fundraising numbers go up before I become a true believer, and her primary performance on Tuesday didn't set the world on fire. Cook got around 20,000 votes to Rohrabacher's 35,000. But Rohrabacher isn't doing any meaningful fundraising at all, and he continues to stick his foot in his mouth with asinine comments like yesterday's about torture being just a bunch of "frat boy pranks." Cook's communications team is fabulous and understands the netroots, and they'll be sure to get attention in this cycle (Blue America has already hosted her). Rohrabacher acknowledges in the LAT article that he'll have to pay attention to this race. He's right.

5. CA-50. Last month: 3. Incumbent: Brian Bilbray. Challenger: Nick Leibham. PVI #: R+5. % Dem. turnout: 50.8. DCCC targeted. Nick Leibham had a good fundraising cycle (about $70K raised in 6 weeks) but a disastrous primary. Cheryl Ede, who was not well-funded, got 43 percent of the vote, and Leibham was only able to manage 19,000 votes to Brian Bilbray's 46,000. The implication here is that Leibham has a problem with the activist support he's going to need going into November. That spells trouble - especially in a seat that's winnable enough that Bilbray's going to try and blur party lines in anticipation of a Democratic wave. In such an environment, we need someone willing to offer a real politics of contrast. This biographical ad is a decent start but Leibham has to get the message out there.

6. CA-03. Last month: 5. Incumbent: Dan Lungren. Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8. The news is all pretty good for Bill Durston. He had a fantastic fundraising cycle (77,000 in 6 weeks) and a strong showing in the primary, getting 26,000 votes to Dan Lungren's 34,000. Lungren, last seen in a Speedo on a lobbyist-paid trip to Hawaii, is absolutely going to have to work this time around. Durston's strategy in his second attempt to win this seat is slightly reminiscent of the effort against Richard Pombo in 2006. He'll need the same kind of support from outside groups to pull it off but it's not impossible; like in CA-11, the registration numbers are all pointing in the Democratic direction, with less than 4 percentage points and only 15,000 votes separating Democrats and Republicans, the closest of any GOP-held seat.

Third Tier

7. CA-52. Last month: 8. Open seat. Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin. Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter. PVI #: R+9. % Dem. turnout: 47.2. The election night numbers show this seat to still be firmly Republican, with Duncan D. Hunter getting over twice as many votes in his race as Mike Lumpkin got in his. Lumpkin managed only 58% of the vote, too, so he needs to lock down base support. Lumpkin's fundraising remains OK but Hunter's got a big advantage there. I personally liked Lumpkin's rejection of those who would treat marriage equality as a divisive wedge issue.

8. CA-44. Last month: 11. Incumbent: Ken Calvert. Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6. % Dem. turnout: 49.3. Bill Hedrick got only 15,000 votes in his uncontested effort on Tuesday, but Ken Calvert got only 25,000 votes in his. This seems like one of those seats where nobody actually knows who the incumbent is. In a Democratic wave election, this is on the outside edge of being competitive.

9. CA-24. Last month: 9. Incumbent: Elton Gallegly. Challenger: Marta Jorgensen. PVI #: R+5. % Dem. turnout: 50.6. This was the shocker primary of the night. Marta Jorgensen, who had dropped out of the race up until a couple weeks before the primary, ended up besting her two challengers, leaving party leaders in the district baffled. There were hopes that this could be a battleground in November, but obviously Jorgensen - who had no expectation of winning and was told about her victory by the media - has a lot of work to do. She introduced herself to the Calitics community today, and her record as someone who worked on the Draft Gore movement is admirable. We'll see how she approaches the next few months.

10. CA-41. Last month: 10. Incumbent: Jerry Lewis. Challenger: Tim Prince. PVI #: R+9. % Dem. turnout: 46.3. Tim Prince received just 32% of the vote in winning his primary over 3 challengers on Tuesday. With Jerry Lewis apparently in the clear from a legal standpoint, even his role as one of America's most corrupt politicians may not be enough to take him down.

11. CA-42. Last month: 7. Incumbent: Gary Miller. Challengers: Ed Chau. PVI #: R+10. % Dem. turnout: 44.0. Ed Chau got around 7,000 votes in disposing of two challengers on primary night, while Gary Miller, running unopposed, got 32,000. Chau needs to raise his profile throughout the district, as he lives outside it. There is a small Asian community in the district and that would be a good place to start.

12. CA-48. Last month: 13. Incumbent: John Campbell. Challenger: Steve Young. PVI #: R+8. % Dem. turnout: 45.1. In a district including Irvine, the housing issue is going to be enormous, so if Steve Young wants to have a shot he's going to have to make that the big issue. He got 18,000 votes in his uncontested primary; John Campbell got 40,000 in his. It's an uphill climb.

2007 Congressional Fundraising Totals

I've been a really, really bad blogger and have stopped my Congressional House Roundup. So here's a mini-one. I've dug up the totals for 2007 fundraising in the top races in the state, and they're a little interesting. Here are the numbers from the key races.

CA-11:
Jerry McNerney raised $1.065 million in 2007, has $760,000 cash on hand
Dean Andal raised $535,000, has $471,000 CoH

CA-04:
Charlie Brown raised $506,000, has $383,000 CoH
Eric Egland raised $141,000, has $79,000 CoH

There are no fundraising numbers yet for the new challengers who have entered the race on the Republican side, including former State Sen. Rico Oller and former US Rep. Doug Ose. By the way, Ose has donated to Doolittle's legal defense fund, along with Minority Leader John Boehner. Reformers, all of them!

CA-26:
David Dreier raised $599,000, has $1.96 million CoH
Russ Warner raised $380,000, has $240,000 CoH
Hoyt Hilsman raised $114,000, has $10,550 CoH

Obviously, Dreier is sitting on a goldmine.

CA-50:
Brian Bilbray raised $419,000, has $262,000 CoH
Nick Leibham raised $211,000, has $188,000 CoH

Very encouraging.

Others to note:
Mary Bono (CA-45) only has a paltry $219,000 CoH. Her potential opponents Julie Bornstein, David Hunsicker and Paul Clay got in too late to register any money in this quarter (sometimes the FEC shows residual candidates who have run in previous years, so I'm not certain they're running.)
Mike Lumpkin, the Democrat in CA-52 trying to take Duncan Hunter's open seat, raised $78,000 in 2007 and has $43,000 CoH.

There's not much else to write home about here.

CA House Races Roundup - September 2007

OK, I'm getting this in just under the wire. Time for the House roundup for September. There are a little over 13 months until Election Day, and with the end of the 3rd quarter on Sunday (donate), this election is really not that far away. In fact, CQ Politics has put out their initial assessment of the House landscape. It's favorable for Democrats, but predictably, there are only two California seats on that radar: CA-04 and CA-11. But there have been a lot of developments in the other races throughout the state as well.

I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also, as usual, including the "Boxer number." 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.

First, let's look at the one threatened seat currently held by a Democrat.

1) CA-11 (McNerney). CQ Politics has the seat "Leans Democratic," and only two Democratic seats are less safe (Tim Mahoney in FL-16 and Nancy Boyda in KS-02). Dean Andal has the funds to make a challenge here, and he's become a born-again environmentalist, which is curious considering his prior anti-environmental history. But McNerney has done himself no favors. His bungled rhetoric during the Iraq debate in August was met with outcry, and this week's vote to condemn MoveOn.org, an organization that gave him over $50,000 in 2006, didn't exactly enthuse activists either. He tried to respond by blasting Rush Limbaugh's comments and asking that he be taken off the air; I'm not sure how that jibes with the First Amendment. McNerney will clearly have a lot of DCCC incumbency protection, but this is obviously a race that won't be easy, and McNerney is making it difficult for activists to continue to support him.

Now, to the top 10 challengers.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle). Last month: 1. Boxer number: 40. This is one of six Republican-held seats listed in CQ's ratings as "No Clear Favorite," and one of only two where the incumbent is running for re-election (the other is Robin Hayes against netroots hero Larry Kissell in NC-08). Charlie Brown, who has a great interview in CQ this week, actually announced his campaign just a few weeks ago as part of a barnstorming tour. As for John Doolittle, his legal woes continue. Eleven years' worth of documents have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department, as part of the Abramoff case. Doolittle is refusing to comply with the subpoena, setting up what could be a Constitutional showdown. Meanwhile, he has at least three high-profile primary challengers, and a lot of pressure within the district to resign. The more candidates in the primary actually helps Doolittle, as it spreads out the vote. If it's a two-person primary, he could easily lose. And Brown would be in excellent position to beat Doolittle if there's a rematch.

2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. Russ Warner, last seen at the Calitics Q3 event, has been busily raising money for the end of the quarter. I'm told that the numbers will be better than Q2. Warner has also gone on the offensive against David Dreier's shameful voting record, being one of the first Congressional challengers to use the SCHIP vote as a campaign issue. That's going to be a big vote to highlight next year. Meanwhile Dreier nearly caused an international incident in Colombia by sitting on a lectern, continued to whine about supposedly shoody treatment on the House Rules Committee (yeah, that never happened under Republicans), and had some shady connections with those who were trying to steal the Presidential election with the Dirty Tricks Initiative in California.

Of course, there's a primary, but Hoyt Hilsman's campaign website hasn't been updated since July. Russ Warner is running a professional campaign, and a good one thus far.

3) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 4. Boxer number: 48. Nick Leibham, who has two nice-looking dogs, is about to get the endorsement of Francine Busby for the Democratic primary, according to our man in San Diego.

The field has been slowly clearing for a while now, with Michael Wray opting against a run and John Lee Evans running for School Board. Steve Schechter has also filed FEC paperwork to run in the district, but this endorsement would line up the one major recognizable Democratic face in the district behind Leibham. Putting to rest any remaining speculation that she might run again, much of the drama is likely over in the primary, leaving now more than a year of Bilbray-hunting.

Avoiding a primary would obviously be a plus for Leibham. Meanwhile, Bilbray is being his usual brown-hating self, calling on the feds to pay local governments for the services spent on "illegal immigrants." This is immigrant bashing at its worst, but while it offends the conscience of the sane, his base is energized by these theatrics. Leibham will have to do a better job of finding new voters than Busby did to have a shot at this district.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 47. I'm still keeping this race fairly high, maybe higher than it should be, because of the possibility of retirement. We've seen the mass exodus of Republicans from the House, as the prospects for them regaining those plum committee chairmanships grow dim. Gallegly says he's running, but he resigned last year before un-resigning, so he's not that credible a source. So far, the only challenger in this district is Mary Pallant, who officially declared her candidacy this week. Pallant is a fellow AD delegate of mine, and a very progressive Democrat.

In announcing her intent to run, Pallant emphasized her stance as a “progressive Democrat,” and invoked Roosevelt in her campaign theme, a Newer and Fairer Deal for the 21st Century. Her platform is described as ending the occupation of Iraq, she said, as well as implementing a universal single-payer healthcare system, seeking energy independence while enforcing environmental protections and pursuing economic strength and security through economic self-sufficiency.

Other candidates seem to be waiting this one out until they see if Gallegly actually runs. Jill Martinez, the candidate in 2006, is rumored to be running again, but hasn't declared officially. Brett Wagner kind of says he's running, but his website hasn't been updated since February. Education activist Chip Fraser may run; he once walked from Ventura to the state Capitol to promote education reform. The district is smaller than that!

5) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 41. Ron Shepston and his team have been spending September making appearances and raising money. He did both in a Blue America chat on Firedoglake. Blue America support has in the past been crucial to Congressional success around the country. Meanwhile, Gary Miller has been voting for endless war in Iraq and against children's health care and S-CHIP. That puts him in line with every other California Republican, but Miller is also incredibly corrupt. Although, he claims that he is not under FBI scrutiny, which is an inspiring political message.

Miller agreed to an on-the-record, unrecorded interview with The Hill days before the August recess, in which he rejected the
notion that the FBI is investigating him.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dick Singer, a spokesman for the city of Monrovia, Calif., said federal agents had interviewed city officials about a $10 million land deal in which Miller did not pay capital gains taxes.
Miller says no taxes were owed because he was forced to sell the land under threat of eminent domain.

Miller also pointed out that a “federal agent” could be any federal entity, such as the IRS. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS had questions after the liberal-leaning group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint to the federal agency against him in August 2006.

“I’m sure the IRS wanted to see the information. A federal agent could be anyone — anyone flashing a badge,” Miller said.

Though there's not much new to report, these ethics concerns aren't likely to go away, and a good candidate could capitalize on them, a la Charlie Brown with John Doolittle.

6) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 7. Boxer number: 45. The Inland Empire was one of the areas where they were out gathering signatures for the Dirty Tricks initiative, before it cratered, and Ken Calvert was quoted in the article:

Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, also favors the system, saying it could help improve the state's dismal voter-turnout rates. He said presidential candidates from both parties, who have written off California as a lock for the Democrats, would have to campaign in Inland Southern California and across the state.

"They'd have to be here, and that would create excitement," he said. "People would think their vote matters."

We'll see if Bill Hedrick can make any hay out of that next November. In addition to Calvert's dismal voting record and serious corruption issues. Calvert was one of 5 US Congressmen on a junket to the CNMI where rumors of sex tourism abound (Dana Rohrabacher and John Doolittle were on this trip as well).

7) CA-52 (open seat) Last month: 10. Boxer number: 44. There are new candidates on the Democratic side in this San Diego-area race. Former Special Forces regular JIm Hester and ex-Navy SEAL Mike Lumpkin are running. Lumpkin seems to be keeping a busy schedule and generating a little press, both offline and in the blogosphere; Markos wrote enthusiastically about him. I still think it's going to be hard to beat the son of Duncan Hunter, and hard to criticize him while he's serving in Afghanistan or possibly Iraq.

8) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 43. Jerry Lewis has announced that he's running for re-election again, so that puts the retirement rumors to rest. In addition, he's managed to get the Justice Department drain the money swamp committed to investigating him:

The veteran prosecutor who'd been heading up the Lewis case has been forced into retirement, The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported yesterday (not available online). It knocks the investigation, already stalled, further off course.

Because of civil-service rules, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. attorney's office who just recently took over the probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis must exit the office for good by the end of September, marking the third significant departure from the office's corruption unit since Lewis first came under suspicion last year.

Michael Emmick, who first joined Los Angeles's U.S. attorney's office in 1982, has been serving under one-year appointments since 2004, after he triggered a contractual clause that will allow him to collect retirement benefits immediately upon leaving the office.

It's highly unlikely that the Lewis investigation is going anywhere. Furthermore, since Lewis will run again, it's likely that Tim Prince, the likely challenger, won't. Worse, Louie Contreras, the candidate in 2006 who didn't campaign at all past the primary, and may have been hand-picked by Lewis himself as a sock-puppet challenger, appears to be running again.

9) CA-03 (Lungren). Last month: unranked. Boxer number: 42. In my preference to highlight races where there's actually an announced candidate, I'm highlighting this one. Dan Lungren is fairly entrenched as an incumbent, but 2006 challenger Bill Durston is running again. Who knows? Maybe the Charlie Brown magic will wear off on Durston and propel him to make a race out of it in this Republican district. Here's his website.

10) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. I'm breaking my "no candidate" rule because I want to see this potentially competitive district be challenged, and I do believe someone will eventually step up. But more important than that, I wanted to mention that someone in Congress is named Miss Mary Mack. Notably, Bono was the only California Republican to vote for SCHIP, which suggests that she knows she has to moderate her views in the district.

Special mention: Because it ought to be mentioned that Dana Rohrabacher thinks the premier of China wants to poison the President. This guy is in Congress, by the way.

Phony Soldier

Rush doesn't consider anyone who disagrees with him a real person, that's been obvious for a while. But I guess the fact that this comes so SOON after the whole MoveOn/BetrayUs thing strikes me as odd. You'd think that whole deification of the military thing would kick in and prevent him from smearing men and women in uniform so soon.

LIMBAUGH: What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

Jon Soltz of VoteVets has a righteous post. And Jerry McNerney really has his back up (this is from an email):

Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation's uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that's too far!

Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush's show off the air?

KWSX in Stockton - (209) 551-1280
KSFO in San Francisco - (415) 954-7449
KFBK in Sacramento - (916) 929-5325

Hey, he's consistent, right? He voted to condemn the MoveOn ad.

I don't want Rush's show off the air. I think free speech means accepting the speech you don't like. And this idea that anyone who's ever served in the military is immune from the slightest criticism kind of makes me squirm. None of this is to defend Rush, who obviously thinks that anyone who doesn't serve the country in EXACTLY the way he sees fit is simply not genuine, and worthy of derision. There's a difference between MoveOn's substantive, fact-based argument, and Limbaugh's hatred of anyone who doesn't think like him. But you don't ban it, and you don't ignore it. You HIGHLIGHT it. And you make sure everyone knows about the vast emptiness within his soul.

McNerney on Iraq

Good for Jerry McNerney for calling B.S. on his OWN visit to Iraq and understanding that the dog-and-pony Congressional delegations only provide a brief glimpse into conditions on the ground. McNerney highlights the excellent NY Times op-ed by returning soldiers, and renews his commitment to bringing our troops home from Iraq on a timeline with a firm end date.

You can thank McNerney for his courage and insight at his blog. I've excerpted a large portion of the email he sent to supporters below.

A few weeks ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq to gain a deeper understanding of the conflict. As I discovered, it's one thing to read about what's going on there. But it's quite another to witness it firsthand and experience it personally.

I came away from this profound experience tremendously moved by the commitment of our brave men and women in uniform as well as the perseverance of the Iraqi people. Although I was proud to lead this delegation and personally meet with our troops, the trip was brief and limited to the locations picked by the military ahead of time.

For a grounded perspective on the war from those who are on the front lines, I urge you to read this critical first-hand account in the New York Times by a group of infantrymen just returning from serving in the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq:

New York Times Op-Ed: "The War as We Saw It"

As the poignant and piercing words of these seven soldiers demonstrates, the unfortunate reality in Iraq is that -- while our troops have performed extremely well under very difficult conditions -- the Bush Administration's planning and execution of the war continues to be an abysmal failure.

Our women and men laying their lives on the line in Iraq have done everything we have asked of them. To honor their service, they deserve leaders who respect them enough to ask the tough questions, and -- when something isn't working -- not only acknowledge it, but fundamentally change course.

In September, Congress will be participating in perhaps the most critical discussion of this conflict since it began in 2003. My campaign web site has been receiving increasing amounts of email from concerned citizens curious about my stance on the war. So, as we approach this pivotal debate, I want to clearly and unequivocally express to you where I stand on the question of executing a responsible redeployment from Iraq:

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date ("date certain") and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an "open-ended" timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That's why -- even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence -- I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).

As this national debate begins anew, I am counting on you to stand strong with me as well. The only way that we, together, can bring this unfortunate chapter in our history to a close is if we remain united and steadfast in our collective commitment.

CA House Races Roundup - August 2007

We have 15 months to go before Election Day, and it's time for another roundup of Congressional races. I am going to continue to focus on the top 10 challenges to Republican incumbents. There is certainly a concern in CA-11 with the Jerry McNerney/Dean Andal race, particularly after McNerney's "I'm a moderate" comment seemed to depress supporters. On the bright side, he did vote against the ridiculous FISA bill. And as we go into September, I would hope he would continue his efforts to end the occupation of Iraq. I will certainly cover the McNerney race in future roundups.

But for now, let's take a look at the top 10 challenges. 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." 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. Charlie Brown got some amazing news this week. Mike Holmes, an Auburn city councilman and a Republican, announced he was running in the primary to unseat ethically challenged Rep. John Doolittle. Holmes ran a primary race last year and got around 30% of the vote. This gives Doolittle two challengers next June (Eric Egland has already announced), which is a lot better for Doolittle than one challenger to which anti-Doolittle forces can focus their energies. This makes it more likely that a wounded Doolittle will survive the primaries (if he's not indicted by then) and face Brown, who's flush with cash and unopposed in his primary. Brown also made a great impression at the Yearly Kos Convention, so there will be plenty of online support for him.

2) CA-26 (Dreier). Last month: 2. Boxer number: 48. Another candidate who made a big impression at Yearly Kos was Russ Warner. At the California caucus he gave a version of this speech:



Warner's fundraising stats were already impressive for the district, and now we're starting to see some grassroots support. If he can tap into what Hilda Solis has been doing online (Solis has endorsed him), there could be a groundswell. Meanwhile, Dreier is whining that local Democrats blocked funding for expanding the Gold Line light-rail service to "focus on projects in their districts rather than regional priorities." Right, because the Gold Line doesn't mainly go through Pasadena, in Adam Schiff's district. Dreier is such a tool.

3) CA-24 (Gallegly). Last month: 3. Boxer number: 47. The August recess is retirement season for GOP Congresscritters. We've already seen three of them go this week alone. So naturally thoughts turn to who's next, and Gallegly, who tried to get out in 2006, is a prime candidate. There certainly must be some talk about it in the district: he's got four declared candidates already: Jill Martinez, Brett Wagner, James "Chip" Fraser, and Mary Pallant.

4) CA-50 (Bilbray). Last month: 4. Boxer number: 48. Michael Wray has dropped out of the primary in CA-50, leaving John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham to contest for the right to battle Brian Bilbray next November. The best way to attack Bilbray, who doesn't get off that illegal immigration message for a second, is to highlight his pro-Bush, anti-progress voting record, including denying health care to 6 million American children with his vote against SCHIP last month. Leibham apparently raised $89,000 last quarter, and Bilbray has a paltry $213,000 CoH, which is interesting.

5) CA-42 (Miller). Last month: 7. Boxer number: 41. The big news here is that we have a candidate, and it's blogger Ron Shepston. You've undoubtedly read a little about him on Calitics. LA City Beat has a nice article about Ron and the netroots movement behind him in this race. It's not going to be easy. But Ron has raised about $7,200 on ActBlue alone, and his offline fundraising is progressing. And Miller is still taking heat from the DCCC, who sent out a notice to reporters attacking his vote against SCHIP.

6) CA-41 (Lewis). Last month: 5. Boxer number: 43. Like with Gallegly, we're waiting to see if the rumors about Lewis' impending retirement are true. We do know that Lewis has continued to bring home the bacon (a little questionable earmarking isn't going to stop him) to his district, and then there's this:

A lobby firm connected to a federal investigation has seen business boom this year for its clients, many of whose projects are in a powerful House appropriator’s district.

The House Appropriations Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), has sponsored or co-sponsored $55 million worth of earmarks in this year’s defense spending bill — close to half of the funds won by the California Republican in the legislation — for clients represented by one firm.

A former appropriations aide to Lewis, Letitia White, and former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), who is friendly with Lewis, work at the company, Innovative Federal Strategies (IFS).

Tim Prince is all but in this race. I met him a few weeks back and he seems like a nice guy.

7) CA-44 (Calvert). Last month: 6. Boxer number: 45. Last month's ruling that a city government agency illegally sold Ken Calvert a bunch of land hasn't gotten a ton of traction yet. He has been targeted by MoveOn in a Riverside-area protest where protestors presented him with a report on how much money district taxpayers have spent on the war in Iraq. Calvert is dug in on Iraq, which is of course going to be a major issue in 2008. Bill Hedrick will be Calvert's opponent, and, um, check out the blog!

8) CA-45 (Bono). Last month: 8. Boxer number: 49. Still no opponent named, and I'm flirting with the idea of dropping any race out of the top 10 unless there's a named candidate. This is really a missed opportunity right now.

9) CA-46 (Rohrabacher). Last month: unranked. Boxer number: 45. I'm adding nutcase Dana Rohrabacher to the list for a couple reasons. One, he has an announced opponent (Jim Brandt, who ran against him last year). Two, it gives me an opportunity to print this quote.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/ Long Beach, was baffled when asked recently about his use of the popular online gathering site Facebook.

"Faith book?" the befuddled congressman replied.

Hilarious.

10) CA-52 (open seat). Last month: 10. Boxer number: 44. Duncan Hunter was unable to beat people who weren't running in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. He's gone from this seat, but his son is running and it's a safe bet that the Republicans will retain it.

More And Better Democrats

Joe Trippi came out and endorsed Jay Buckey yesterday for the US Senate in New Hampshire. We all know that the Republican brand is trashed and that 2008 offers a unique opportunity to get elected not just Democrats, but progressive Democrats who aren't wedded to the power structure in Washington. I like anyone's website that has a solar panel on the masthead, and Buckey seems like an intelligent problem-solver who has some good ideas, especially when it comes to technology and energy.

Democrats are not ever going to have the message discipline of the Republicans, nor should we strive for it. A big tent airs their differences in public, and then after the primary process comes together, while still holding the elected officials accountable. Jeanne Shaheen is the prohibitive favorite in New Hampshire (though not yet a candidate, she polls 28 points ahead of incumbent John Sununu), but she supported the war and the Bush tax cuts in 2002. Now, 2002 is a world away from 2008, but it shouldn't be enough just to elect a Democrat. Values and policies should come into play. Otherwise, this moment will have passed with a bunch of Democrats in office who are cautious, nervous, and end up reverting back to the mushy middle. I agree with Chris Bowers that it's hard to know what you're getting into:

One problem progressive, grassroots activists face is that we simply do not always know how the people we help elect will act once in office. In fact, there might not be a way to know that for certain. Campaign rhetoric is often intentionally vague, and policy positions laid out on candidate websites are virtually never exactly like laws that end up being enacted once people are in office. The truth is that it is easy to see what you want in a candidate, and that candidates have a vested interest in trying to look appealing to a wide range of activists and voters with whom they may have actual disagreements. This makes it very easy to think you are, to use unfortunately economic language for a moment, "purchasing" something very different than you actually are with your precious activist time and money. And that goes for a lot of candidates beyond Clinton or McNerney. It often feels difficult to know what you are going to get from anyone you help elect to Congress.

The point I want to make is that this peaks more to the difficulty of figuring out where anyone's "core" is during a campaign than of Democratic candidates flip-flopping. Maybe this is simply what McNerney was like all along, and we just didn't notice (although he did say that he was a Barbara Boxer Democrat during the campaign). Even though I am definitely disappointed, I'm still glad to have helped him, in my own small way, be elected to Congress. I am still trying to both figure out the key signs to know how someone will be "on your side" once s/he takes office and how to blog about elections from a progressive Democratic perspective, and not just a partisan Democratic perspective. I hope to improve on this front, because I believe that choosing progressive candidates in primaries is one key to electing a more progressive governing majority.

This is difficult, but when someone comes out and undermines progressive principles with their rhetoric, you know that they're not likely to do an about-face after the primary. In other words, it's easier to know who your friends AREN'T than who they are. I don't think electability comes into play in this time when Republicans are dead in the water and the progressive movement has the money, energy and ground troops any Democrat would need to help get elected. I think candidates need to be looked at on the merits, and when those like Jerry McNerney stray from those values after getting to Washington, they need to hear about it.

171

That's a huge number for withdrawing from Iraq, and it includes two Presidential candidates (Kucinich and Paul), the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader (!), my Congressman (thank you Rep. Waxman), and 169 Democrats in total. The Out of Iraq Caucus just got their biggest vote yet, and we just have to keep trying.

I would like to know why Rep. McNerney voted against the amendment. I expected some defections, but not that one.

AP story here. The important vote is coming up, when the Republicans make a motion to recommit and try to hand over yet another blank check to the President.

UPDATE: The motion to recommit failed, and David Obey's "short leash" bill passed 221-205 (and it would have been 223 if Brady and Fattah weren't campaigning to be the mayor of Philly). So that would give Bush money to continue the war for two months, then he would have to return to the Congress to prove progress to get the balance. It hs an uncertain future in the Senate and Bush has vowed to veto.

Miller on Torres' Radar Screen? Torres Coming to the Blue House?

I'm slightly skeptical, but pleased, at Art Torres' answer to this question.

CMR: What is the 58-County Strategy and how is it going to help us be successful in 2008?

AT: Howard Dean and I worked together on the 50-State Strategy when he was running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. I was part of an effort to make sure he was elected chair because I felt he would be the most progressive and effective chair, which has proven to be right. It’s taken a little time for us here in California to establish a 58-County Strategy, which I announced in December of 2006, and we’re going to be more incremental given the resources that we have available. But the most important priority for me is a Jerry McNerney seat, the Charlie Brown seat – which will be his seat once he defeats Doolittle – and Gary Miller in Southern California. We’re going to reach out to those communities where we can coordinate with counties with the resources we have available for voter registration and finally to make a mark on those counties that were up to this point considered red, that are now purple or turning blue.

I'm willing to give Torres a chance to live up to this. Miller didn't have an opponent in 2006, but if the CDP says they want to devote resources there, let's see it. Same with Brown in CA-04, and to be fair Torres has previously admitted mistakenly not making this a priority last year. What bothers me is that this 58-county strategy is being discussed on the federal electoral level instead of about local and state legislative races; that's where party-building really begins. As a delegate, I want to work with those leaders in the party who talk about reaching out to all counties. I also want to ensure that they actually go about doing it. That's why I'm supporting the creation of an Audit Committee and a resolution expressing support for a 58-county strategy.

CMR: How do you think the emergence of the netroots and the blogger community as a powerful voice has been helpful to the Democratic Party?

AT: I think it’s the healthiest result we could have imagined. That’s why I will be there honoring the bloggers on Friday night in their support of Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney’s campaigns (at the "Blue House at the Brew House" fundraiser Friday night in San Diego co-hosted by CMR, California Progress Report, Calitics and fellow California bloggers) because the bloggers are important to our effort to get people moving. The bottom line is: whatever positive efforts other groups out there can do independent from us, I applaud.

I'll be happy to see Art and other party leaders at the event, and I hope he'll continue to show support to our efforts to grow the party.

(I also liked how Torres framed Perata's "Out of Iraq" referendum as a way to back the Governor into a corner, and how he consistently weasels out on his actions regardless of his words. We need more of that. I don't really support Perata's bill because it concedes that we'll still be in Iraq in February 2008. But as a way to get Republicans and the governor on the record, I love it. We don't do enough of that in California; holding Republicans responsible for their votes.)

Blue House At The Brew House

This week marks the California Democratic Party convention, and I'll be going down to San Diego on Friday, where I'll be trying to blog as much about the proceedings as possible. One of the things that the California blogosphere will be doing there is a blograiser for Rep. Jerry McNerney and the next Representative from the state, Charlie Brown. We're calling it Blue House at the Brewhouse, and $40 gets you in the door and mingling with Brown and McNerney. Even if you're not in San Diego, you can participate by donating at the link, and we're hoping to include a live webcast element as well (more as it develops).

Obviously, early money is important for Congressional campaigns, both to show strong support and scare off potential challengers. I have met Charlie Brown and gotten to know people who work for Jerry McNerney, and both of them are great grassroots candidates who are excellent standard-bearers for the progressive movement. They also prove that strong Democratic candidates can compete anywhere in this state, which is the future of this party.

Here are the details:

Who: Charlie Brown, Jerry McNerney and friends
What: Give $40 min. (20 bucks each) on this page
When: 8:30 PM Friday April 27th
Where: Karl Strauss Brewing Company, Downtown San Diego
1157 Columbia Street – San Diego, CA 92101

CA-11: Faster Than Rapid Response

It's great to see the McNerney campaign fight back so quickly after being attacked. Not only was McNerney at the top of the target lists in Karl Rove's presentation to the GSA which was revealed in yesterday's House hearing, but the Repubs set up a hit piece disguised as a website:

SACRAMENTO - National Republicans have begun their attempt to unseat Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, a full 20 months before Election Day 2008.

The Republican National Campaign Committee, which spent tens of thousands of dollars in an unsuccessful effort to save former Tracy Rep. Richard Pombo last fall, has included McNerney in its first round of targets posted on www.therealdemocratstory.com.

The NRCC will also send about 100,000 e-mails into McNerney's 11th District highlighting their criticism of the freshman Democrat's voting record.

"Jerry McNerney needs to explain to his constituents why his voting record is identical to that of the San Francisco Speaker Nancy Pelosi," NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said. "His voters didn't send him to be liberal lap dog of the Democrat Party. If Jerry McNerney is so interested in representing the liberal interests of San Francisco voters, then maybe he should have considered running for office there."

McNerney has voted with Nancy Pelosi 100 percent of the time so far this year.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll released today shows that 49 percent of Central Valley residents approve of the way Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her job, while 30 disapprove.

McNerney spokesman Andy Stone says they were expecting the attack.

"We knew it was coming, and they can continue to attack," Stone said. "We're going to keep working for the people of the 11th District."

Guess that whole "San Francisco values" thing won't exactly play in a district right outside of San Francisco with a lot of former San Francisco natives.

My favorite part on the site is the part that says McNerney is "Wrong On Energy". Yep, if there's one thing a wind energy scientist doesn't know anything about, it's energy.

But like McNerney's spokesman said, they were ready for this attack, and they hit back.

It’s only March, 2007. But it might as well be November, 2008.

Yesterday, our campaign got hit with a one-two punch. First, a scandalous House hearing unearthed a secret document from a deputy of Karl Rove revealing that the GOP “architect” is targeting me as #3 on his political hit list.

Then, the National Republican Congressional Committee carried out Rove’s hit yesterday with “The Real Jerry McNerney” -– launching a slick Swift Boat-style web site that smears my record of service to you in Congress. The NRCC plans to promote this deception site by spamming voters in our district with over 100,000 e-mails.

Make no mistake. I will respond to this malicious assault on my character and my record. But, I can’t fight back without your help. To stop the right-wing political hacks plotting to kill our movement before it changes Washington, I need your support today -– before this Saturday’s critical Federal Election Commission campaign finance reporting deadline.

They've already raised over $260,000 on their site, which is pretty strong 20 months out. Karl Rove is as good for Democratic fundraising as Hillary Clinton or some such boogeyman/woman is for Republicans. This is appearing to backfire.

Support Jerry McNerney at the Calitics Act Blue page.

Karl Rove Is Afraid of You

You may have seen the hysterical House hearing today with the head of the General Services Administration over their using federal property and taxpayer dollars for partisan campaign activities.  If you haven't, here it is.

This is a scandal.  But one interesting aspect is that the Republican playbook has been cracked open; we can now plainly see what Republicans Karl Rove believes needs defending in 2008.  And guess who pops up on the defense list?  John Doolittle.  And who's on the "2008 House Target" list? Jerry McNerney.

This isn't your humble progressive blogger talking here, this is "the Architect."  The one who has the "real math."  And the one who's going to marshal vast resources against Jerry McNerney and Charlie Brown in 2008.  The funding deadline is Saturday.  You know what to do.


Calitics Act Blue page

Bump In The Road

Whoops. Arnold won't support the term limits measure unless redistricting is also on the initiative menu for Feb. 2008. And Perata doesn't want to mess with the Congressional districts. So either it's all going down in flames or we'll have an old-fashioned partisan Governor v. Legislature war.

Would I HAVE to pick sides?

...adding, Arnold is being perfectly consistent here. He always said term limits would be the carrot to get redistricting done. For my part, I don't think anyone understands the degree to which Californians (actually all Americans) gerrymander THEMSELVES. Regional redistricting has been going on at the individual level for a while now. Exactly how are you going to make a balanced district, say, in Santa Monica? You'd have to reverse-gerrymander to get it.

The only way that districts change is demographically, as more and more people from the coastal cities move to the inland areas, for example. That's what we saw in CA-11; the partisan number there lowered enough to make McNerney viable. And if Democrats would stop worrying about how hard it would be to run a race in a red area and just spend the money to do it, they could win anywhere. Case in point: Charlie Brown in CA-04, who was let down by the California Democratic Party (and Art Torres just admitted it:)

Despite the strong Republican composition of the district and Brown's failure to oust Doolittle amid a wave election, the Democrats smell blood. California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres said Brown might have won last year's race if the party had given him more help and said Democrats don't want to make that mistake again.

"I was out on the campaign trail with him and his wife, and he really resonates with that district," Torres said. "Did we do enough? Probably not; we should have done more."

All talk. Let's see some action, Chairman.

The Meaningless Nonbinding Self-Satisfactory Bill Lives!

The big story this morning was that Republicans were desperate to stop the Senate's nonbinding resolution on Iraq, and were scrambling to come up with their own resolutions to divide the caucus and ensure nothing too divisive would pass. Sure, there were the usual quotes of Senators acting "concerned" and "worried" and "troubled," but really that's what the story was about. For some reason the Bush Administration really doesn't want a nonbinding resolution to pass. Probably because the press, who is as silly as they are, would treat something with no real power as a "stinging rebuke." I understand that sometimes you have to work within the system, but this is ridiculous.

And it gets even more ridiculous, as Sens. Levin and Warner have agreed to compromise on their competing nonbinding resolutions, virtually ensuring that they will get enough votes to break a filibuster and pass it. I agree with putting up a vote both to see where people stand, forcing Republicans to choose between party and country, and as part of a "kitchen sink" strategy with more and more bills coming down the pike. But on its own merits, this nonbinding thing is crap, and that two nonbinding resolutions put together represents some sort of "breakthrough" is baffling. 0 + 0 = 0.

Now the only competing measure will be one pushed by McCain and Graham, calling for specific benchmarks the Iraqis have already shown they can't handle.

The kind of thinking in the Senate that believes a nonbinding resolution will end the Iraq war must be the same kind of thinking that believes Iraq won't be an issue in the 2008 election. I don't know what country these Senators are living in sometimes.

There are actual ways to stop the war; they've been well-documented. There's something almost poetic in the fact that, on the day after Sen. Feingold runs a classroom seminar on the powers of the legislative branch during wartime, the same legislators make a "breakthrough" on what amounts to a strongly worded letter to the most obstinate man in the history of politics.

There are actual ways to stop the war; they've been well-documented. There's something almost poetic in the fact that, on the day after Sen. Feingold runs a classroom seminar on the powers of the legislative branch during wartime, the same legislators make a "breakthrough" on what amounts to a strongly worded letter to the most obstinate man in the history of politics. Sen. Obama figured it out. Reps. like Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters Jack Murtha have figured it out. Netroots heroes like Patrick Murphy and Jerry McNerney, who signed on as co-sponsors to the bills from the aforementioned Representatives, have figured it out. They're either strong-willed people or those who haven't caught DC disease yet.

Levin and Warner are, well, the opposite.

Nonbinding to victory!