As we sit back and await the results of the Los Angeles Municipal election today, I thought I’d share with you something that came my way from the DCCC.  Like so many other Republicans (here’s looking at you, Bobby Jindal) that decried the stimulus as “socialism” or some other such but were more than happy to take the money for their states and districts, Mary Bono Mack (R-CA45) has similarly derided the stimulus package while praising the benefits it will bring to her district no more than a week later:

In a striking example of hypocrisy, Representative Mary Bono Mack voted against the landmark American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act and now is touting a nearly $5 million grant included in the legislation to benefit her district.

“Representative Mary Bono Mack’s vote against the economic recovery act in Washington and taking credit for its benefit in her district is just too much to take,” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  “As a member of the ‘Party of No,’ Bono Mack voted against legislation that would save or create 8,700 jobs in her district and now she’s crowing about the benefits it’ll bring to her constituents.”

In announcing her opposition to the economic recovery package in a press release on February 13, Bono Mack said the bill was “not the answer” to our nation’s economic woes that funds were being spent on “special projects…that have little or nothing to do with stimulus” and even that provisions in the bill could have “a detrimental effect on our local economy.”

In a complete about face that smacks of hypocrisy, Bono Mack sent out a follow up release last week announcing a grant for her district that will provide “much-needed assistance” and noting her pleasure that “our community will benefit from this funding.”

Sorry, Representative Bono Mack, but after voting twice against the job-creating and tax-cutting economic recovery package, it’s just not possible to have your cake and eat it too.

In my opinion, it’s great to see the DCCC trying to get on Mary Bono Mack early.  The Inland Empire (my old stomping grounds, as I grew up in Ken Calvert’s CA-44) is ripe for the picking, as you can see from this chart.  Obama won Bono Mack’s district 51.5%-47%, a huge reversal from 2004, where Kerry lost by 13 points.

If the DCCC wants to make gains in Congressional races this midterm cycle, there are few better places to focus on than the districts of the Inland Empire, which are getting bluer by the day and could seriously use some help in terms of building up a Democratic Party infrastructure (of course, the CDP could help with that too).

UPDATE by Dave: Sorry to intrude, but this is the best part of this whole thing:

Met with Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack […] Talked to her about Obama’s $780 billion stimulus legislation. She’s outraged that the plan has “$1 billion wasted on a magnetic-levitation train from L.A. to Sin City ” – all at Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s doing.

After expressing my doubt that the Las Vegas line was actually in the bill’s language, Bono Mack directs her staff to “get him the bill, it’s right there, show him.” A few minutes later, a staffer emerges with a copy and quietly says “it’s not in the bill.”

This is what happens when you believe the zombie lies of the conservative Limbaugh crowd instead of, you know, your eyes.

Note: I support Eric Bauman’s candidacy

I attended the California Young Democrats Executive Board meeting at UCSB yesterday to participate in and report on their endorsement process for state party offices, and catch up with my YD friends from other areas of the state.  And we got to hear a speech on the federal budget and energy policy from Lois Capps,

Most of the endorsements were no surprise, especially as, in my experience, the CYD Executive Board tends to tack somewhat closely to the party infrastructure–so, to that end, the endorsements of Burton and Bradley were no surprise.  Alex Rooker was the only candidate for female vice-chair that showed at up at the Executive Board meeting, so it was no surprise that she got the endorsement over Alicia Wong.

Eric Bauman’s endorsement, however, may be considered a little bit of a surprise.  Eric Bauman actually does have an opponent, a 25-year-old named Evan Low who currently serves on the City Council of a city in Silicon Valley.  Although Evan is by far the underdog, he actually could have been considered favored to get the CYD endorsement, since he is very active within CYD and well-known among the membership in Northern California.

There were passionate speeches on both sides, but Eric barely ended up winning the endorsement vote.  After Eric received the initial endorsement, there was a motion made to do a co-endorsement so CYD could avoid the risk of losing face by not supporting its own, which passed rather easily.

CYD isn’t the first interest group or minority to issue a dual endorsement in the male Vice-Chair race, as Judy Chu, Betty Yee and Mike Eng have all done something similar.  What will be interesting to see is how each candidate chooses to market the endorsement, because while each candidate has indeed received a CYD endorsement, the actual process was a little more complicated.

I interrupt your budget negotiation updates to bring you some…more math.

There was some discussion in a previous open thread about the so-called “Chile Option”–a move by certain conservative forces to split the state in two not based on North or South, but rather based on Coastal vs. Inland.  Now, the argument behind this is supposedly that California’s bleeding-heart urban populations don’t understand farming, which means that farmers need to protect themselves by casting off the coastal population–and the group is thus named “Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries.”

The argument made by this campaign (as seen in Teddy Partridge’s post linked above) attempts to use Proposition 2–the animal rights initiative–as an example of why the Coast has got to go:

But the measure passed by a nearly 2-1 margin because voters in the high-population counties (from San Francisco along the coast through Los Angeles) cast their emotional, warm and fuzzy votes in favor of it.  They never gave agriculture a thought.

It is definitely true that Proposition 2 passed with 63.5% of the vote.  But what happens if we “protect the farms” and strip out the votes of the 13 counties that the “Chile option” seeks to remove?

Well, the answer is…not much changes.  Removing the votes of the bleeding-heart coastal counties who know nothing about agriculture, the new vote totals are 59.2% yes, 40.8% no–still an absolute landslide.  Not surprising, after all, since Proposition 2 was only defeated in 11 of the 45 remaining counties–including by only a 1% margin in Fresno County, the only county that voted no that has any significant population.  And it stands to reason when one looks at the vote totals of the populous counties that are more conservative and thus not thrown into the “Coastal California” bleeding-heart subgroup:

Orange: 60% yes

San Diego: 65.5% yes

Riverside: 62.2% yes

San Bernardino: 61.6% yes

Sacramento: 59.3% yes

Solano: 65.2% yes

By contrast, Los Angeles County voted for the measure with 67.1% of the vote–a percentage not significantly far removed from some of these counties in the rural-aware California proposed under the Chile plan.

The bottom line is that if Prop 2 really is going to serve as an reason for pushing the Chile Option, one of two things must hold true:

a) it will be completely ineffective; or

b) it’s really about the fact that they’ve given up on returning California to Republican rule and want to carve their own state out of it to have a better shot at it.

And really, given the fact that Orange and San Diego Counties–which voted heavily for Prop 2–tend to be politically conservative, I think it’s pretty obvious that Prop 2 isn’t the main motivation here.

Attention San Francisco Chronicle: the truth called.  They want Page B-6 of yesterday’s paper back.

You see, in recent days, the Courage Campaign has come out with a new action asking Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate Republican lawmakers for potential violations of the California Penal Code regarding vote-trading.

In comes John Wildermuth to save the day, and tell the Courage Campaign that they need to be careful:

You have to be careful what you wish for in politics, and Democrat-friendly groups looking to bash Republican legislators over state budget delays should remember that.

Well, John, a couple of points are in order here.  I would say that the first one is your use of the word “bash.”  Now, in a political journalism context, “bash” is frequently used to refer to one side attacking another side on its policy positions, and implies a typical political attack.  However, the Courage Campaign is not bashinig Republican legislators.  They are encouraging the Attorney General to investigate a possible crime.  And what are they going after?  Not “state budget delays”, John.  The “delay” has nothing to do with it.  It is, rather, allegations of vote-trading, which is illegal under the California Penal Code.  After all, the Republicans appear to have made offers that they will vote for a budget compromise if the Democrats vote to gut certain labor and environmental regulations.

So, that’s for starters:  John, you’re portraying this as typical partisan run-of-the-mill politics, when in reality it’s anything but.  But let’s move on, shall we?

“The California Penal Code explicitly prohibits this type of vote-trading, and the attorney general is duty-bound to investigate this felonious activity,” said Rick Jacobs, founder of the progressive Courage Campaign.

People on both sides of the political aisle say Jacobs seems to be attacking the type of horse-trading that goes on every day in Sacramento, Washington and every city hall and state capital in the country.

Now, there’s a reason I titled this post “epic journalism fail”: because that’s exactly what your piece is, John.  I would have you notice that nowhere do you actually mention what California’s Penal Code actually says on the subject:

86.  Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.

I have bolded the relevant section of the text.  It’s the part, John, that says, basically, that trading votes, either on the same question (i.e., bill) or a different question (i.e., “I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine”) is illegal.

So I’ll be completely honest here, John.  I don’t honestly give a damn if you claim it’s the type of thing that goes on every day in Sacramento and Washington–and the reason I don’t is that if you’re going to write an article critical of the Courage Campaign’s call for an investigation, you might actually want to discuss the merits of the case.  I’m no lawyer, John, but generally, the way the law works is: state the law; state the facts; apply the law to the facts.  And it doesn’t matter whether “it happens all the time” or “all the kids are doing it” or any other such excuse or rationale.  The only questions are: what is the law, and what are the facts?

My recommendation, John, is that if you have a problem with the Penal Code barring political horse-trading, take it up with the Penal Code.  But critiquing the Courage Campaign for actually asking that the Code be enforced?  That’s just weak.

And I would end there, John, but your epic journalism fail is not yet done.  I submit as evidence:

Under the interpretation by Jacobs and the unions, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her GOP counterparts could be looking at prison time for negotiating Wednesday’s agreement on President Obama’s stimulus package.

FAIL!  John, I did mention, did I not, that this is the California Penal Code, not the US Code?  And that, according to the Penal Code, the law applies to “Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district”?  So, no, Nancy Pelosi and her GOP colleagues could not be prosecuted under section 86?

And, John, even if there were some vague ambiguity about that, the United States Constitution would put that to rest–specifically, Article 1, Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

That provision, of course, as clarified by subsequent interpretations such as the 1966 US v. Johnson ruling, clarify completely that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any speech and debate (for example, negotiating the stimulus bill?) that they engage in as a part of their official duties.

I bring it up, John, because you’re not only trying to compare apples to oranges.  It’s worse than that.  It’s worse because what you think is an apple is actually…say…a kiwi.  And that, John, is a pure and unadulterated journalism FAIL.  Until you know more about the law and the Constitution than I do, I recommend you stop writing about it for a major newspaper.

Endorsements for CDP Executive Offices were considered at last night’s Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee meeting.  As expected, the Committee voted to endorse Eric Bauman for Male Vice-Chair by voice vote; the committee did not take up the issue of Female Vice-Chair, as Alex Rooker was not in attendance and could not make it.

The endorsement for Chair, however, was very interesting.  Chris Finnie spoke on behalf of her candidacy, and got quite a loud ovation despite having laryngitis and having practically no voice.  After Finnie’s speech, someone made a motion from the floor to endorse John Burton for chair.  That motion was soundly rejected, with only 50 voting for, and more than 90 voting against.

At that point, the room was buzzing, and Eric Bauman made a motion from the podium that the issue be allowed to be reconsidered at the next month’s meeting when John Burton would have a chance to speak; that motion was accepted unanimously on voice vote.  I expect that John Burton will be easily endorsed at the March meeting, provided that he shows up to the meeting.  But if last night was any indication, the Los Angeles County Central Committee members aren’t going to roll over for Burton and they’re going to make him earn their support.

As a side note, the Controller’s race, which is hotly contested between current Controller Eric Bradley and Progressive Caucus favorite Hilary Crosby, was much closer than I expected.  Eric and Hilary had a very cordial, if brief, forum at the meeting, and I honestly felt that Hilary gave the better answers and showed a knowledge of the inner workings of CDP finances that I would have only expected a party insider to have.  Despite it being Eric’s home turf, Hilary nearly denied him the endorsement; Eric needed to get 71 of the total votes cast, and ended up getting 72.  Forcing the LACDP to go neutral would have been a big coup for Hilary, but the fact that she even got that far is a big testament to the strength of her campaign, and the big support she’s getting in the progressive movement.

The governor can’t announce the date for a special election for the vacancy in CA-32 until there actually is a vacancy in CA-32.  And there will only be a vacancy in CA-32 once Hilda Solis is confirmed as Labor Secretary and resigns from her seat in Congress.

Which might not happen for a while, as some Republican on the Committee has placed an anonymous hold on her confirmation:

While other new Cabinet members are already hard at work, the confirmation of Rep. Hilda Solis, D-El Monte, as President Barack Obama’s Labor secretary remains stalled in a Senate committee.

At least one unidentified Republican senator is using a parliamentary procedure to holdup Solis’ confirmation, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, alleged from the Senate floor Thursday.

The anonymous hold – as the informal delay tactic is known – essentially prevents the full Senate from voting on Solis’ confirmation by threatening a filibuster. It could be lifted at any time.

The hold was placed on the nomination because of Solis’ support for legislation aimed at facilitating union organization and regarding pay-discrimination, and for non-responsive answers during her confirmation hearing, the Washington, DC-based Congress Daily reported Friday.

Solis is one of the original co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I think we can rest assured that trying to prevent President Obama from getting the EFCA passed is probably a large factor in stalling Solis’ nomination.