The John Doolittle retirement party is remaining the social event of 2008 in California. But check out the language used by the Placer County GOP Chair on a recent NRCC poll of John Doolittle and Charlie Brown:

The poll shows that [Doolittle] is in a statistical dead heat with Brown at this point.

In politics, if your candidate is ahead, you say that even if it is within the margin of error. If you are behind but withing the margin of error, you say exactly what Tom Hudson said.

This is huge news for Charlie Brown. He’s a challenger neck and neck this far out in a Democratic year with a broke incumbent and NRCC. I think Hudson knows this, either that or he is inept when it comes to spinning:

Before the 2006 election, Congressman Doolittle’s poll numbers were about the same as they are now. As everyone knows, 2006 was a terrible year for Republicans and Congressman Doolittle still won.

Sir, this isn’t just before the election, this is 11 months out. In 2006, Doolittle massively outspent Brown, this year Brown is ahead in fundraising. In 2006, the NRCC had money to help Doolittle barely win, not so this time. In 2006, Brown was a newbie candidate, this time he is a polished and experienced politico.

I think 2008 will be a better year for Republicans across the country — and in Placer County, so that will help a great deal.

The word “hope” would be more appropriate than “think” in the above sentence.

In any plausible scenario, including a scenario where turnout is as bad as it was in 2006, Congressman Doolittle will still win re-election.

Actually, I think it is more plausible that Doolittle will be indicted before the election than win.

But here is the most plausible scenario:  Doolittle’s staff will keep on squealing to the feds. The press will keep writing about how Doolittle is a crooked as a corkscrew. Brown will continue to dominate in fundraising, same with the DCCC. Brown will continue to mature as a candidate and his operation will be far more experienced. Brown will win.

Help make it so:

Contribute

Facebook

(Good question – promoted by Julia Rosen)

On Wednesday night the Newsom Administration went public with their pressure on Susan Leal to resign from the PUC.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission chief Susan Leal has been asked to resign, the first major department head to be targeted for removal by Mayor Gavin Newsom, knowledgeable City Hall sources said… Leal received a telephone call Friday evening from Newsom’s chief of staff saying her services won’t be needed in his second term.

This has left a number of people asking “Why?”, and in response to the Mayor’s decision, I sent the following Letter to the Editor of the Chronicle yesterday afternoon.

To the Editor:

I am stunned to learn of Mayor Newsom’s request to the PUC General Manager Susan Leal for her resignation (“Newsom urges Leal to resign as head of S.F. PUC,” 12/6/07).

More below the fold.

To the Editor:

I am stunned to learn of Mayor Newsom’s request to the PUC General Manager Susan Leal for her resignation (“Newsom urges Leal to resign as head of S.F. PUC,” 12/6/07).

For years, the PUC languished under poor leadership and mismanagement prior to Leal’s arrival and is now in the process of implementing a $6 billion overhaul of our water and sewer systems, in addition to its ongoing responsibility for delivery of water to 2.5 million people, sewage conveyance and treatment for all San Franciscans, power delivery to MUNI and all City buildings, and operation of one of the greenest water systems in the world.  Leal has brought with her a competent, determined leadership team that has saved the City millions, implemented strategies for greener, cleaner power, and given direction back to an organization that badly needed it.

That Gavin Newsom has decided Leal’s “fit” in some circle of friends is more important than the continued success of this invaluable organization speaks volumes to what a second Newsom term holds for San Francisco.  During the Mayor’s re-election campaign, I at least felt that he couldn’t set the City backward, but now I am not so certain.  How unfortunate for us all.

Luke H. Klipp, President

San Francisco Young Democrats

I appreciate anyone’s thoughts here.

In light Chris Lehane's recent hiring by the Film and TV Producers to work against the WGA, does anyone know the official position of the California Labor Federation on this? Back in October Lehane was brought on board to fight against Gov. Schwarzenegger's health care plan. According to the SacBee:

the campaign is being directed by a prominent Democratic political consultant, Chris Lehane, who was hired by the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. The effort also includes the Service Employees International Union as well as consumer and faith-based groups.

[Link]

Somebody should ask Cal Fed Chief Art Pulaski if they are still using Lehane's services?

Cross posted at San Diego Politico

“When taken in concert with the statements and actions of the Administration over the past year regarding Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate reveals a pattern of willful deceit directed at the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world on the critical matters of war and peace.”

                        Dennis Kucinich

He also pointed out that this most recent revelation, of an Administration’s deaf ear to facts, shouldn’t surprise us:

“More than three months ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was cooperating with inspection procedures and demanded that the Bush Administration disclose any alleged evidence regarding such a program. None was provided.  More than a month ago, Russian President Putin revealed findings by his own nation’s intelligence services and announced that there was no credible evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

“Yet, in the face of both sets of findings, this Administration continued its drumbeat for war. Just this past week, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, with the NIE in his hands, was trying to arm-twist our NATO allies and the Republic of China into pressuring the U.N. Security Council to impose additional sanctions on Iran because of its alleged weapons program.

As many of you know, Kucinich’s push for Impeachment has been concerned specifically with this Administration’s actions regarding intelligence for War; Iraq, as well as Iran. In fact, Article Three of the impeachment resolution reads:

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Kucinich pointed out that since it now seems publicly evident that the Administration willfully falsified the facts regarding their weapons program, it is now time for Congress to investigate the mater:

“I call on the Congress to launch an immediate investigation into what our intelligence agencies knew and when they knew it. I believe such an investigation will further build the case for the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President. The fact that  the President recently raised the specter of a possible World War III in public comments regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program — when he knew full well that Iran had no such program – should seriously be considered as a high crime. And, the fact that he and his Vice President have pursued plans for our military to drop 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear research facilities constitutes a war crime.”

And really how couldn’t you? Because I want to lay it down here: anyone who hopes to hold our highest office must support accountability for that office. It is time for our other candidates to join Kucinich in pushing for an investigation. Biden has seems to have started to firt with the idea, but we need the pressure from all of our Candidates. The more public and popular, the more pressure their statements will create. Where are they?