Two more upgrades for Jerry McNerney.  First, the National Journal’s Chuck Todd, who has a ranking of the top 65 races moved CA-11 up to #37 from #45, a move of eight slots.  I would also like to point out that all of the top 30 races are Republican-held.

Also, Chris Bowers of MyDD has raised his ranking of the race from Leans Rep to Toss-up/Leans Rep in his latest House Forecast, citing he apparent worry of the NRCC.

(Don’t tell the frogs… – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross posted to dKos)

As I read the LA Times today, I was disappointed to see their endorsement of “No” on California’s Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. What bothered me further is that the majority of their argument is supportive of the initiative. They acknowledge that such reform allows candidates to spend more time with voters discussing issues. They note that legislators become free to say “no” to any interests who use campaign funding as leverage for special treatment. And they realize that special interests are now also turning to ballot measures to get their way with Sacramento.

Indeed, the main thrust of their argument seems to be one of fairness to corporations. And it struck me that this is another example of the boiling frog parable. In their view, corporations are akin to citizens. Prop 89 is “insulting” to corporations. We have to be just as “fair” to them as to people.

Since when has it become acceptable for corporations to be on equal footing with human beings? Corporations serve a useful purpose in the business world, but it’s always dicey when their interests intersect with those of people. In fact, with awareness of American fascism increasing, we should be more concerned than ever about their close ties with government. True, corporations shouldn’t be treated as all-evil and taxed to the hilt for everything. But Prop 89 doesn’t do that. Its modest increase of 0.2% still keeps the tax lower than it was from 1980 to 1996. And most small businesses won’t pay any increase at all.

The Times’ premise seems to be if you don’t like something in a proposition, you should vote “No”. But voting “No” is not sticking with the status quo. To do that, just don’t vote on it.  When you vote “No”, you are explicitly choosing a system that gives big business a louder voice than individual citizens. One in which corporate interests are favored over the public good. And one in which our elected officials are obligated to spend time raising money instead of serving the public.

I’ve now heard the argument so many times that I’m tired of it: “Proposition 89 is great, but it’s flawed”. This is a cop-out. Reforming our electoral process doesn’t occur all at once by flipping a switch. It happens in steps. But it can’t even begin if we miss the big picture, the promise of real election reform, by focusing on nits that people will never agree on. That’s just a distraction.

We’ve become like those boiling frogs that don’t know what’s going on around us because the influence of corporations in government has increased so gradually it’s become accepted. Fortunately, the November ballot forces our awareness. We can choose to stay in that pot by voting “no”, or choose to change our situation with a “Yes” on 89.  

(This is a cross-post of Granny Doc’s diary at dkos “(CA-50th) More Phone Shenanigans from the R’s”, with permission. Edited to move some material below the fold. – promoted by CarlsbadDem)

Bilbray’s campaign is up to more dirty tricks.  They have been “auto dialing” people in the 50th District with a message that sounds like it’s a Busby Campaign message.  Many of these calls are set to auto-dial late at night, intentionally waking people up.

People are furious, and Busby responds:

Do you have friends and family in the San Diego area? If so, you may want to alert them to this as soon as possible.

The 50th is the race in which Francine Busby (D) is challenging Brian Bilbray (the Republican who replaced Duke Cunningham).

Busby camp response:

The Busby campaign will be filing a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) immediately because this is illegal and unethical. 

In the meantime, if you get one of these calls, please write down the message and call our office at 619.479.0114.  We need to know if you get calls that sound like a Francine Busby message.  If you get a message on your voicemail, please save it and let us know.

Wouldn’t you think that the Republicans might have learned their lesson about dirty phone tactics, by now?  Apparently not.

It’s unfortunate that Brian Bilbray is resorting to these dirty tricks, but it’s an indication of just how nervous he is about this election.  The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has spent over $140,000 in the last two weeks to attack me with mail pieces, auto-dialed calls and “push” polls (highly negative polls with attack messages embedded).

Our campaign will continue to communicate the TRUTH to voters.

Francine Busby

This kind of tactic is particularily devastating to the unengaged voter.  Being awakened by a phone call at 1:30am to hear a political message is sure to confuse and outrage anyone who is the recipient of such a call.  It also pretty much guarantees that that voter will not support the candidate they imagine is responsible.

There must be some honor left in the Republican Spin Machine…somewhere…someone.  As these for hire hit firms destroy Democracy using methods never before available, is there no way to prod them to decency?

This comes from a friend of a friend.  He is an attorney who has far more knowledge of this area of law than I have. As of right now, I’m not sure what attribution I can give him, so I present it anonymously.

Decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., warned that “government hardly could go on” if the public had to pay compensation for every change in the law that “diminished” the value of private property. Unfortunately, government paralysis is what California may get if Proposition 90 passes this fall.

While Proposition 90’s proponents sell it as a simple measure to prevent governments from abusing the power of eminent domain (also known as condemnation), in reality it could stymie public plans to reduce pollution, protect neighborhoods, preserve open space and guarantee coastal access. Buried deep in the measure’s text (in subdivision (b)(8) of the proposed amendment) is a radical change to the California Constitution.

Proposition 90 would newly provide that governments “damage” private property, and have to pay compensation, whenever their rules and regulations “result in substantial economic loss” to the property owners. Constitutional law already recognizes that a regulation can require compensation if it “goes too far,” in Justice Holmes’s words. Currently, though, compensation is typically required only if the regulation makes the property economically valueless or defeats the owner’s vested development rights. Proposition 90 would go much further, making the public pay even if a regulated property retains most of its value and even if the owner’s hopes for more lucrative development were purely speculative.

Continued over the flip…

We’ve seen how Dick Cheney’s neoconservatives used September 11 as cover for their long~planned invasion of Iraq. With comparable cynicism about the public’s perspicacity, conservatives in the “property rights” movement have seized on the Supreme Court’s highly unpopular decision in Kelo v. New London (holding that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment projects that transfer the property to new private owners) to advance a cherished agenda of making governments pay for every decrease in the market value of private property.

In Oregon, where a similar measure passed in 2004, counties have reportedly been forced to approve large, unplanned developments on farm and forest land, and industrial operations in residential areas, because they cannot afford to pay the landowners the large gains that could be made with unrestricted development. Property owners have already filed at least 3 billion dollars worth of claims against Oregon governments. Proposition 90, which grandfathers in existing government regulations, probably would not be as bad as the Oregon law, but it would be bad enough To see how Proposition 90 might work, consider these examples:

• A coastal community passes an ordinance requiring beachfront property owners, when their buildings cut off existing public access, to provide an easement for public passage to the beach. Owners could claim a “substantial” decrease in value because of the easement.
• Seeing that a groundwater basin is becoming dangerously overdrawn, the local water authority puts a moratorium on new wells until a way can be found to recharge the aquifer. The agency has substantially reduced the value of developable land in the basin, and will have to pay up or revoke the moratorium.
• A county decides to finally take action against the suburban sprawl that is choking its traffic arteries, polluting its air and overrunning its remaining green areas. It amends the county general plan to draw an urban growth boundary, beyond which new urban developments ordinarily won’t be approved. Though the county has not yet actually denied a development permit to anyone, any landowner who might have proposed a development could claim his or her property had lost some of its value, creating an “economic loss” for which the public would have to pay.
• As large downtown office buildings start to encroach on an adjacent historic district, the city places a height limit on new buildings in the area. A speculator holding property in the historic district sues because she cannot make quite the huge profit for which she had hoped.

Air and water pollution laws, also, could fall to Proposition 90. Under the landmark global warming law the Legislature just passed, the Air Resources Board is required to issue new regulations on emission of greenhouse gases. Will California taxpayers have to pay every power plant operator and factory owner compensation for the billions of dollars in profit they could have made by polluting the air?

Reasonable people can disagree about whether California needs additional protection against eminent domain abuse. But Proposition 90 is not the simple reform measure it purports to be. It is a Trojan horse designed to give developers the power to veto planning rules and raid your local government treasury. Let’s keep the gates closed on this one.

David Roth and Mary Bono sat in the same room today for an editorial interview with The Desert Sun.  Not a debate, she can’t handle that, but actual proximity, which is a stretch for our shrinking violet of a Rubberstamper.  Roth spoke for the citizens of the district, while Bono spoke on behalf of herself.  Cause, you know, she really loves this job, and she thinks she’s doing great.   Roth decimated her with some of those mean, liberal facts you’ve heard about.

So shallow, so oblivious, so pathetic next to David Roth who believes that politics is a noble calling – you really have to join me on the flip to know how stark the differences are in this CA-45th race.

Just in from the Roth campaign – Some highlights that you won’t necessarily see on the selected video excerpts available at The Desert Sun’s page.  :

1. She gets advice on earthquake preparedness from hurricane experts in Florida, yet represents a landlocked district prone to earthquakes
2. She receives her ethical advice from Dennis Hastert, leader of the Republican culture of corruption.
3. When asked, Mary Bono said her biggest regret was getting stuck in traffic on the way to a football game- even though thousands of American troops have lost their lives because of the Bush war in Iraq.

Yes, that was her actual response.  Asked what regrets she had over the course of her public service, Mary said she regretted only that she got stuck in traffic once on the way to a football game.  Nothing about the consequences of her votes.  No thought for the scores of tortured corpses that show up daily due to “the Iraq thing” that she thought would blow over soon.  Guess they slipped her mind.  Or the kids whose college aid she cut.  Or her votes to mine in National Monuments.  Or the seniors without prescriptions thanks to the doughnut hole.  From where Mary Bono sits, things are just peachy here in America.  She’s having a great time playing Congresswoman.  What’s our problem?

4. She has no plan for ending the war in Iraq.
5. Riverside County receives the second least amount of funding of all the counties in California and she doesn’t “consider it a congressional thing.”
6. Even though she counseled Mark Foley on his sexuality she still can’t decide if they had a personal relationship.
7. She is proud of voting for legislation that left millions of seniors and people with disabilities without any prescription drug coverage.

Here’s the “live blog” from reporters in the same conference room.  Their stenographic skills are spotty at best.  Presume a GOP slant when reading the notes, this paper’s editorial board and Bono’s campaign finance committe shared a member (until Roth pointed that out in public), and boy does it show in the daily coverage.  For a real live blog with Roth, here’s yesterday’s Blue America on Firedoglake.  Thank you, Howie Klein, Christy Hardin Smith and Jane Hamsher!

Apparently Mary Bono is not a bright nor an honorable person.  The Rubberstamp record tells us that, however it becomes most obvious when she speaks.  But David Roth is the antidote.  Upon arrival in Washington, he wants to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, undo the damage from No Child Left Behind, and fund Pell Grants to the level we need.  What will Bono do after Congress?  Horseback riding and hiking, she said.  (She works on that earthy image, much as Bush does.)  Good thinking, Mary.  Take a hike.

Crossposted from Daily Kos

The excitement is building in so many races and it’s becoming difficult to figure out who to support they’re flipping so fast. Let’s add another one to that list and this one wasn’t even close a short time ago and this poll DOES NOT include this latest Foleygate/Pagegate Republican meltdown.

This district is so red that everyone wrote it off especially after the special election but no more. This one is for the taking. The poll below shows clearly that exposure is all we need. We rarely have such definitive indicators but here they are.

Oh and rumor has it that based on this poll the Big Dog – yes, that Big Dog – is seriously considering coming out later this month to stand with Steve. ‘Nuff said for now. Now, let’s show that we can make a difference so that others will know we mean business.

Visit our blog here. Marcos wants to see action for a grass roots campaign before he gets excited. Well, look at this.

And go to his site to read all about his positions and other interesting information.

I’ve written about Steve Young in the past here. Read this to get an idea of how great a candidate Steve is and that he’s the right guy to take a seat that has not been held by a Democrat in a very long time.

So, why is he on fire?  Follow me below the fold.

Recently the campaign received the analysis of a poll conducted in the Ca 48th last week by Lake Research Partners. The poll is not online yet. I present to link to have a look at the client list.

The sample size was 300 likely November 006 voters.

The poll was composed of two sample areas:
– an area exposed to advertising and canvassing from Steve’s campaign
– an untargeted area that is 74% registered Republican

Here’s a snippet of the Oct 3 memoranda from Lake Research Partners:

“The following is a summary of key findings from a survey of General Election voters in the 48th Congressional District of California. These findings are based on 600 completed interviews with two matched samples of 300 likely November 2006 voters, one sample from areas exposed to advertising and canvassing from the Young Campaign, and the other sample in areas untargeted by the Young Campaign. Interviews were conducted from September 25-28, 2006. Sampling error is +/- 6% within each area.

  • John Campbell has yet to solidify his relationship to the voters. Voters in the exposed area, despite its Republican leanings, have not committed to re-elect Campbell, with only 32% indicating they would re-elect him, compared to 68% who would either vote for someone else (28%) or consider (40%) voting for someone else. Even in the very heavily Republican area where voters were not exposed to Young messaging, only about half the voters are committed to re-electing Campbell, far below the 74% Republican registration in the area.

  • Where voters have been exposed to Young’s advertising, despite Campbell’s incumbency and a significant Republican registration advantage, the head-to head race is very competitive, with 40% for Campbell and 36% for Young, 3% for Libertarian Bruce Cohen and fully 21% undecided.

  • Voters want to elect someone who will take the country in a significantly different direction than the direction in which President Bush is headed. In the exposed area, only 35% want to keep in the Bush direction, and even in the heavily Republican area (74% Republican), only 44% want a candidate (like Campbell) who would keep in the Bush direction.

  • Voters exposed to information from Steve Young—regardless of party—generally feel more favorably disposed toward him, and more negative toward Bush and more supportive of Young.

Here’s the short version:

Who would you vote for? – from the “Exposed to Steve area”
– 32% Re-elect Campbell – that’s an indication of how low GWB can go.
– 28% Vote for someone else
– 40% Consider voting for someone else

Who would you vote for? – not from the “Exposed to Steve area”
– ~50% Re-elect Campbell – remember this is an area that is 74% registered Republican

Voters who have been exposed to Steve’s message.
– 40% Campbell (R )
– 36% Steve Young (D)
– 3% Bruce (I)
– 21% Undecided !!

Significantly different direction of the country
– 35% stay on the Bush path
– 44% want a candidate to change direction

Here’s the part we can directly affect:

Voters exposed to Steve and information from him, regardless of party, like him, are supportive of him and are more negative to Bush and Bush rubber stamps.

This poll shows that the Ca 48th is ours for the taking. As you can see we need to get Steve’s message out.

Volunteer here and/or contribute here. Don’t forget the $.01 to show that it’s coming from the netroots.

This poll shows that the Ca 48th is ours for the taking. Let’s take it.

Disclaimer: I don’t work for the Steve Young for Congress Campaign. The ideas expressed here are mine alone alone as an excited private citizen and do not represent those of Steve Young, his advisors, staff, or supporters.