CA-37: Two-Day-Late Debateblogging

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

Detailed two-day-late debateblogging on the flip…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Thread

We’ve got a lot of congressional talk swirling around the belfry.  Because I’m in San Diego, that means immigration.  So of note is that Congress is planning to postpone the passport requirement for Mexico and elsewhere until 2009 because the government can’t keep up with the applications.  Well played.  I’m kinda overwhelmed today by stupid news like food-fight lawsuits, dolphins shot to death and a baby served booze at Appleby’s, so you’re gonna have to seek out your own inspiration this weekend. It’s healthy and I’m proud of you.  But on the immigration tip: The White Stripes – Icky Thump

“Well, Americans:
What, nothin’ better to do?
Why don’t you kick yourself out?
You’re an immigrant too.”

City Attorney Investigations and SF Politics

So, your humble (haha) front page contributer knows a thing or two about City Attorney investigations. In fact, I once had to go down and have two investigators grill me on tape for an annoyingly long time. I didn’t complain. I didn’t hire an attorney. I didn’t hide, because I had done nothing wrong. Which, from my personal knowledge of the dynamics, makes in my mind this look even sketchier.

I know we’ve had a lot of SF politics on the front page, but only because it has been interesting. And the last thing this state needs is wannabe SF politicians getting the Paris Hilton treatment.

Getting Dirty in SF’s City Hall

(The SF Sentinel is reporting that Supervisor Peskin has removed Sup. Daly as Chair of the Budget Cmte and appointed himself in Daly’s stead. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Some “grassroots moderates” in SF are going after Supervisor Chris Daly. Apparently, they consider affordable housing and social services as “robbery.” Here’s the quote:

Supervisor Chris Daly has robbed the City to the tune of $30 million, doubling next year’s budget deficit. Daly’s raids might force the Board of Supervisors to raise taxes in order to alleviate future deficits.

Um, so, for future reference, I should point out that alleging criminality is what we in the legal profession call libel per se.  In other words, you can’t do that.  So, I hope the California Urban Issues Project has a few bucks in reserve.  Sure, SF is used to some rough politics, but accusing a supervisor of literally stealing $30 million is beyond the pale.

Now, a little background, as I understand it.  The Mayor’s Budget cut $33 million for affordable housing. And, unsuprisingly, Supervisor Daly wants to put it back. A reasonable idea, given that the median home price in the city just crossed the $900,000 mark. Well, Gavin Newsom’s downtown allies, the CUIP-SF are riding herd on the whole deal. But, apparently, the CUIP thinks that affordable housing is well, a crime. If I got any of that wrong, well, shoot me an email or leave a comment.

I wonder if Ed Jew was in on this.

Funding California Challengers and Looking Forward

Last week I ran down the unused money from last year’s unopposed and underopposed California members of Congress.  It was a long list. 22 districts held by Democrats fielded no Republican challenger who met a very low bar of fundraising legitimacy.  Really not impressive, but really not surprising either.  So what about the flipside?  How did Democrats do in going after Republicans?

Democrats left only one California seat unopposed, and failed to raise money in one other.  Of the 21 Republican-held seats, only 4 qualified as as unopposed or underopposed (challenger raising less than $25,000).  It suggests two things to me.  One, Democrats are already doing a pretty good job of funding candidates in red districts (although there’s still room to improve of course), and two, that strong funding only goes so far given the way these districts are drawn.  So as I would be cautioning anyways, fundraising is only one piece of the puzzle.  It still takes the right candidate in the right context.

Warning: I get long-winded on the flip

Republicans held 21 districts going into the 2006 elections, and faced the following challenges by the dollars:

CA-02 Sekhon $193,582
CA-03 Durston $308,664
CA-04 Brown $1,711,967
CA-11 McNerney $2,461,329 (pickup)
CA-19 Cox $688,175
CA-21 Haze $152,530
CA-22 Beery $27,206
CA-24 Martinez $134,371
CA-25 Rodriguez $207,844
CA-26 Matthews $54,484
CA-40 Hoffman $143,706
CA-41 Contreras $0
CA-42 Unopposed
CA-43 Folkens $17,104
CA-44 Vandeberg $8,668
CA-45 Roth $725,020
CA-46 Brandt $77,764
CA-48 Young $435,083
CA-49 Criscenzo $90,050
CA-50 Busby $3,634,467
CA-52 Rinaldi $80,480

The infrastructure clearly exists to support a full slate of well-funded Democrats in California.  Indeed, on top of the above numbers was the more than $6 million that un- and under- challenged CA Dems had left over after last year.  That’s a lot of Democratic money just at the congressional level ready to roll.  I bring this up primarily in the context of discussions that have taken place here at Calitics as well as in other corners of the Internet regarding the distribution of funds and the virtues of various plans to standardize said funds.

So at the risk of starting an actual conversation here, I’d like to throw open the floor to suggestions as to how best to harness this monetary strength.  I think it’s great that there’s so much money out there and that it’s already being used to mount legitimate campaigns in tough Republican districts.  The capacity and the willingness to fight it out against long odds is already in place and that’s encouraging.  So what’s the next step?  How do we work to fill every district with a strong candidate who will use that money effectively?

Despite my track record of hearing crickets when I ask for feedback and suggestions, I think this is an open question that deserves a discussion (perhaps one that lasts all…weekend…).  California is a huge state and the manpower to investigate every race doesn’t exist here.  Even if it did, the subjectivity would turn some people off.  So I think that instead it may be that, as a community (not just a community of Front Pagers), we should be identifying and seeking out relationships with pre-existing grassroots organizations in these districts where we, quite frankly, don’t know much.

As has been discussed in several different forums, blogs serve several purposes.  Not least among these purposes is being a megaphone for the issues of existing grassroots organizations.  I know that members of Calitics have made and continue to make strides in reaching out to communities that may otherwise not be heard from online, and I’m encouraged by some of the progress that’s been made in this regard.  My question to the readers in general though is how best to bring the insights of these groups into the collective wisdom of the site.

Put shortly for anyone who skimmed to the bottom: What candidates do we want, how do we find them, and how do we get the right money to them once it happens?  This isn’t a new discussion, but it isn’t one that’s over either.