(Part of our week-long series on CA-04 and CA-11 as we head into the end of the fundraising quarter. Think about throwing them a few bucks. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Don’t you just love California’s natural scenery? Don’t you love our great mountains, our lovely deserts, our fantastic grasslands…
Oh yes, and HOW ABOUT OUR MAJESTIC COASTLINE?!

Well, what if I told you that if John Doolittle, Richard Pombo, and Guy Houston had their way, we wouldn’t have ANY OF THIS. Don’t believe me? Well, follow me after the flip to see what would happen to the natural beauty of our state, our nation, and OUR PLANET, if these anti-environment right-wing extremists had their way… (video now over the flip-Brian)

Don’t you just love our lovely hillsides? Isn’t it great to just walk through the wilderness, and commune with Mother Nature?

Well, if Richard Pombo had his way and stayed in Congress, we probably wouldn’t be enjoying our wild hills. After all, there’s a good reason why he was called “The Most Anti-conservation Member of Congress“. Perhaps it has something to do with his close ties to developers… Oh yeah, and should I tell you just HOW CLOSE these ties have been?

Now do you really want to risk allowing this man to return to Congress?

Aren’t our beaches great? Isn’t our coastline just magnificent?

John Doolittle is still in Congress… And if he has his way, our coast would be OBLITERATED. For one, he thinks that global climate change is just “much ado about nothing“. I guess that means he would not mind if his constituents were to ultimately LIVE ON OCEANFRONT PROPERTY, as the sea level continues to rise.

Oh, and if that weren’t bad enough, he also wants to rape our coast while it’s drowning! Remember how Doolittle sponsored legislation to open up our coast to drilling for natural gas? Instead of coming up with REAL SOLUTIONS to our energy problems, Doolittle only wants to destroy our coast and enrich his fossil fuel industry friends.

How nice for them… BUT NOT SO NICE FOR US AND OUR BEACHES!

Last year, we made it halfway through our mission to unseat two fiends of the earth… And we came so close to unseating the other guy. So why should we give up now…
Especially when the right-wing extremists are ready to undo our great victory last year.

So do you really want BOTH OF THEM back in Congress, or do you want BOTH OF THEM OUT OF THERE? It’s up to you… No, really! During this last week of fundraising for the first quarter, you can help Jerry McNerney win reelection AND help Northern California elect someone who REALLY CARES ABOUT THE REGION’S NATURAL RESOURCES.

This weekend I attended a pre-convention meeting for Region 10 of the California Democratic Party, which stretches from Santa Monica all the way up to the Monterey/San Luis Obispo County line.  This is a big coastal region, parts of which have not been sufficiently Democratic over the years.  But there are some great people in the trenches doing the necessary work to change that.  Here are some disconnected thoughts:

• It is extremely important to spread the Democratic message into outlying counties, because we can’t expect to solely depend on LA and SF to carry us through.  In 1992, Democrats controlled 41 counties in California; by 2006, that number had dwindled to 22.

• One of the most vibrant areas of the state for Democrats is Ventura County.  Whether it’s because of demographic shifts (more people moving in from Santa Barbara) or a lot of hard work, the results are impressive.  While statewide, Democratic registration has faltered over the past 15 years, in Ventura County Democrats hold a scant 5,000 vote disadvantage currently, compared to 15,000 not but a few years ago. 

• One of the great pilot programs that Democrats in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties have rolled out is called Vote Blue.  This is a neighbor-to-neighbor program that uses targeted canvassing to spread the progressive message in communities.  They get new homeowner information and arrive at the new resident’s doorstep, saying “Hi, we’re your neighbors, here’s some voter registration information for this area, here’s some information on the Democratic agenda.”  I know we bloggers like to stay on the Internets and ensure never having to talk to anyone, but there’s no substitute for this kind of real-life neighbor-to-neighbor contact.  They also sweeten the pot by adding a 3-month free subscription to the local paper, which the papers are all too happy to give them.  This is the kind of thing Democrats all over the state should be doing on a weekly basis, not just around elections.  You can get more informaiton at the link.

• There is strong support at the grassroots for a 58-county strategy, and every single delegate reading this needs to add their endorsement to that issue and make sure the Resolutions Committee is flooded with people supporting it.

• The SD-19 race is not going to be a walkover for Republicans, even though it’s currently held by Tom McClintock.  I met Jim Dantona at the meeting, and hope to do a longer piece on his chances later.  He ran for County Supervisor in Simi Valley last time out, easily the most Republican city in the region, and garnered 48% of the vote in a district that is something like +30 Republican registration.  We may have parity in registration for this Senate district by the time this race comes around in 2008, and Dantona appears to be running.  Keep this one on the radar screen.

• Another great success story was relayed by Henry Vandemire, chair of the Computer and Internet Caucus and head of the Big Bear Lake Democratic Club.  Big Bear is also 2/1 Republican, and yet they managed to get 3 Democrats on the City Council for the first time in as long as anyone can remember.  And they did it entirely through civic action, visibility and hard work.

There are opportunities for the party to grow, and there would be even more if the Party leaders fully commit to a 58-county strategy and strengthen the efforts of these progressive leaders in red counties.  The Party must live up to its commitments of supporting Democrats everywhere.  That means providing the money they promise to candidates, like Ferial Masry in AD-37 and Jill Martinez in CA-24 (that’s very likely to be an open seat next time around).  These two are both running again, and can win if they get even a modicum of support from the state party.

That’s all I’ve got for now.  I invited many of the people at the meeting to start posting on Calitics, hopefully we’ll begin to see Ventura and Santa Barbara better represented here.

(This is a huge deal, and I’m glad someone has come here to open this discussion. This LNG terminal would make the Ventura area the biggest polluter in the state. It is vital to coalesce some action around this issue. More here. – promoted by dday)

We need help putting an end to Cabrillo Port. This off shore LNG terminal will spew over 200 tons of air pollution into Ventura and LA Counties every year. BHP Billiton, the largest mining company in the world has been buying influence at the state, federal and local levels. It is time to put an end to this. Write the California State Lands commission. Attend the Lands Commission meeting on April 9th. at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center.
This is a link to videos about this issue.
http://www.youtube.c…
This is a link to the Environmental Defense Center
http://www.edcnet.or…

Oh Phil, how sorry I am to see it has come to this.  I know you want to remain relevant in the California political scene, but really, what are you and your team thinking?  Your obsession with being a progressive spokesman on the Iraq War is hurting you and it is painful to watch.

You created this new organization, Standing Up for California, in large part it seems to put your substantial email list to good use.  I wish you had found a good purpose for it and used it in a competent manner.  But no.  Instead we get 7 emails since February 20th on what ostensibly looks like an email campaign around the House side of the Iraq supplemental debate.  The first two weren’t half bad, asking us to contact our representatives to encourage them to fund the troops, but start bringing them home.  One could question why you insist on addressing the Iraq War rather than health care policy of the prison crisis, but at least they were decently written.

The third one, on March 13th, had me rolling my eyes from the first line and the all caps subject wasn’t much better:

Our hard work is making a difference. The Democratic house leadership is calling for an end to the war and for the redeployment of our troops.

Could Phil really be taking credit for Speaker Pelosi introducing the Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act?  It’s all well and good to take credit when you have done something, but the people on your list aren’t dumb.  They know that there are larger machinations at work.  I hoped it would end there.  I was sadly mistaken.

On the 21st an email signed by Phil came into my inbox with the heading “19 Californians standing in the way”.  It caught my attention right away.  The email told me there there indeed 19 California Congressmen standing in the way of the supplemental and that Phil wanted to raise $10,000 by April 1st to “run ads” in their district.  I assumed by the dollar amount that he was talking print ads, but he broke one of the first rules of Internet fundraising, be very specific about your ask.  People want to know exactly what they are giving their money towards.  Of course, email requests to fund print ads haven’t worked since 2003.  They were all the rage back then, until people got burnt out on them.  I thought it was a dumb ask.  I figured Phil would have a very hard time raising even the $10,000, which is not a large amount, compared to what he was raising off of his list during the campaign.

I was right.

Two days later, on the 23rd I got an email with the headline $8,500.  The first line said:

We are still $8,500 away from reaching our $10,000 goal by April 1st.

Who does that?  Who the heck would send out an email blaring that there has been a tepid response to their fundraising request?  When emailing, you have to project strength.  Who wants to give to a weak campaign?  Getting 15% of the money you asked for on your first hit is a failure.  Subsequent ask will get diminishing returns.  Either people think it is a good idea and they will give, or they won’t.  The person writing these emails does not know what they are doing.

And when I say field, I mean it.  In the last four years there has been a big growth in online political professionals.  There is a small number of people who know how to create and deploy online email campaigns.  They have a specific skill set.  They understand how to write a powerful email and map out the campaign.  It may seem simple, but I assure you it is quite a craft.  One cannot simply be a good direct mail person and expect to write a email fundraising campaign.  You have to understand what asks are working right now.  Which subject lines are hot and what to say in your follow up emails.

This was a disaster and it would only get worse, for later that day I got a second email from Phil.  One came in the morning and the other in the afternoon.  Evidently, they had made no headway on the goal, since it said they still needed $8,500 out of the $10,000.  This was turning into a lesson on how to burn a list.

They had clearly planned this out on a timeline, without paying attention to the Congressional calendar.  They were asking us to put newspaper ads in Congressional districts.  What happened on Friday?  Well, the supplemental passed.  That meant that this campaign was pointless.  It actually passed between the time I got my first email of the day and the second.  The news was all over that point, but poor ole Phil was still sending out emails asking us to pay for some print ads to pressure Republican Congressmen over something they already voted on.  How is it possible that a guy like Phil would not know the vote was coming on Friday?  It is inexcusable.

The ask was dumb, the execution horrible and the response tepid.  It was painful to watch, knowing that Phil was ruining a valuable list of California activist.  That list could have been put to good use.  There are plenty of campaigns where Phil could be an effective spokesman on, but as the election proved, the Iraq War is not one of them.  People pay good money for lists like Phil’s.  I have to assume that he got a large number of unsubscribes from this ill-advised campaign, coupled with a much decreased response rate.

A number of us in the California blogosphere have reached out to Phil, during and after the campaign.  We have offered our advice for free.  If he or his team had asked any number of us about the campaign he was thinking of deploying, we could have steered him away from such a foolish mission.  We know that the guy he has running his email list has little or no experience doing this.  This could have been avoided and that is why it is so disappointing and painful to watch.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Vista) is hosting Cafe San Diego today, and has started the conversation with a few words about the Carol Lam situation:

I recognize that every U.S. attorney has to balance needs and resources, but it’s clear from information released by the Justice Department that the Southern District of California U.S. Attorney’s Office lagged behind the other four districts on the U.S./Mexico border in prosecuting border crimes. I never asked that Carol Lam be fired, but I was adamant over a three-year period that the situation with smugglers in San Diego needed to be addressed.

This is supposedly an interactive situation, so feel free to cruise over to the comments section if you have anything to say to or ask of the Congressman.

UPDATES ON THE FLIP

Update 1:

My first question:

“You say “I recognize that every U.S. attorney has to balance needs and resources,” so my question is whether you’ve attempted to increase the resources available to USAs around the country? If so, what has been the problem, and if not, then in what way are you not attempting to dictate the priorities of the US Attorney’s office? Further, given your acknowledgment of the limited capacity of Ms. Lam’s office, would you have preferred to trade the Cunningham, Wilkes, Foggo, and other corruption investigations for increased prosecution of immigration cases?”

Issa has written his follow up to the 8 posts to his original post, mentioning his efforts to increase resources for the office and responding in part:

I disagree, however, with the notion that Carol Lam had an “either/or” choice between prosecuting Cunningham and those who traffic human beings across our borders.

In regard to the question about finite resources and Carol Lam not being told that she needed to improve her border crimes record, I do have some concerns. Carol Lam testified before Congress that Justice Department officials did not make clear to her that she needed to make border crimes and gun crimes more of a priority.

My response will be up shortly wondering whether, since he doesn’t have a problem with Lam being overzealous in other areas, he’s just saying she’s lazy?

Update 2: Josh Marshall at TPM is also watching to see what Issa has to say.  The comments are getting increasingly combative, but if Issa responds again, my comment is first in line.

I’ve spilled quite a few pixels on sentencing reform in these virtual pages, but nothing brings home the fact that our system is seriously f’d up like a personal story. Yesterday, Steve Lopez of the LA Times gave us just that in his story entitled “Stolen Lightbulb Casts Only Darkness”. I highly recommend that you read the entire article, as it is a powerful personal tragedy on so many levels.

Mark Smith, a 51 year old, HIV-positive man has been in the LA County jails for the last six months.  For what, you ask? Well, he stole a lightbulb. An expensive one: $10. The fact that he had $180 in his pocket and that he had paid for everything else didn’t much matter. It was a parole violation, and a deputy commissioner for the parole board sent him back to the Big House.

Smith’s story, of course, is longer than can be summarized in a paragraph. And, it is clear that Smith made some bad decisions. He was convicted of felony murder for being at a drug deal gone bad. In 2000, after serving 17 years, Davis was deemed ready for parole, but Gray Davis, in his infinite wisdom, was in his ToughOnCrime^TM phase. So, to show how tough and strong he was, Davis denied the parole. But in 2003, the State Supreme Court gave Davis the middle finger (right before the people of California did the same), and told him that Mark Smith did not belong in prison anymore.

But now, he goes back to prison. A man suffering form AIDS-related dementia will now be left to the whim of the prison health care system. (although…at least it’s free, I suppose…but wait…oh, now the state pays for it.) A man who is no longer even physically capable of committing a violent crime is now in jail. For stealing a lightbulb.

What is the solution? I don’t know, but clearly what we have now is not the answer.  SB 40 wouldn’t even answer this question, as it is in the hands of the parole board not the judiciary.  And, anyway, SB 40 would likely be struck down as unconsitutional, or at least that’s the opinion of SF public defender Jeff Adachi in today’s California Progress Repor.

At some point, instead of nibbling at the edges (what SB 40 does) we will have to rebuild from the ground up.  The parole system, sentencing are not separate systems, or at least they shouldn’t be considered that way.  They are interrelated and each component can’t be taken in a vacuum. Listen, I really, really appreciate what Sen. Romero is trying to do. At least she has the courage to address such a tough issue, which is far more than I can say for most of the Legislature. And no Asm. Spitzer, just spouting platitudes of how you are ToughOnCrime^TM does nothing to solve the problem.  I suppose you can spout those for a few more years until you fade into the oblivion of the lobbying industry, or whatever you choose to do after term limits strike.  So, spout whatever nonsense you choose, but somebody, sometime soon, is going to have to do something about our prisons.

This just in from Peggy Lowe at OC Register’s Total Buzz news blog:

Could be a big day here at All-Recount-All-The-Time HQ….As Norberto reported on Friday, Team Janet’s lead has slipped to just three votes as Team Trung persuaded Judge Michael Brenner to overrule ROV Neal Kelley on four ballots. Brenner has also promised a decision today. That means, of course, that we might have a swearing-in ceremony at the Board of Supes meeting tomorrow.

OK, so Crybaby Trung begged and groveled enough for the judge to reverse one of the Registrar’s rulings. So now, Janet Nguyen only leads by THREE VOTES…
So will this paper-thin lead be enough to survive today’s legal action…
And will the other four supervisors FINALLY ACT, and seat the Nguyen who won?

Stay tuned for more as the Great OC Political Psychodrama (hopefully) FINALLY COMES TO A CLOSE…