All posts by David Dayen

Campaign Update: CA-50, CA-10

A couple brief updates:

• CA-50: Francine Busby, who has competed in this district a couple times, in 2004 and 2006, never breaking 44%, will announce another run, challenging Rep. Brian Bilbray.  This is an “Obama Republican” district, where Bilbray only beat Nick Leibham by 50-46 in 2008.  And voter registration is trending in our favor.  And Busby is kicking things off by hitting Bilbray over his “Party of No” rejection of President Obama’s policies, which makes sense in a district he carried.

Busby says, “Voters called for change in 2008 when they elected Barack Obama. (Incumbent Congressman) Bilbray didn’t heed the message. He played a reckless, cruel game of politics with the lives of struggling San Diegans when he voted no on Recovery and Reimbursement Act that would bring millions of federal stimulus dollars into our economy.

My sense is that CA-50 is something of a tease of a district, with a Democratic ceiling around 46%, but I think Busby is taking the right line to win, and she does have some name ID, which could help.  Stay tuned.

• CA-10: I hate to even give space to the Adriel Hampton “boomlet,” but after calling for the legalization and taxation of marijuana, today the Congressional candidate is actually promoting and endorsing the right-wing, corporate-funded and Fox News-promoted “tea parties.”  No lie.  You know, this guy is more faddish than a junior-high Jonas Brothers fan.  Anything with a hashtag is good, I guess.  Even if it enables corporate-friendly drowning of government in the bathtub.  What a Web 2.0 genius!

Going Electric

I’m tired of even thinking about the lunatic political leaders in this state, so I’m going to take a short break and focus on the innovators, those who have the ability to drag us out of recession and toward a new economic future.

For starters, Tesla Motors, which last year was thought to be in a fair bit of trouble, has come out of that and has begun to receive orders for their new $50,000 sedan model.

San Carlos, California-based Tesla Motors said it has received 711 reservations for its new Model S, an all-electric family sedan that carries up to seven people and can travel up to 300 miles per charge.

Tesla said reservations – which include a refundable $5,000 fee – started coming in after the car was formally unveiled on March 26. Mass production of the Model S is expected to begin in late 2011.

The company said the Model S will go from zero to 60 miles per hour in 5.6 seconds, with an electronically limited top speed of 130 mph. Three battery pack choices will offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge. The company has not released pricing options on the higher-mileage battery packs.

The anticipated base price of the Model S is $49,900, after a federal tax credit of $7,500.

One high-profile buyer is Governor Schwarzenegger himself, who will turn in the Tesla roadster he had previously purchased in exchange for the sedan.  The goal of Tesla is to bring a model into the $35,000 and under market, essentially on par with a Lexus, within the next couple years, and with the federal tax credits and complete lack of gas costs, that would be an attractive option for a pretty broad section of the upper and upper-middle class.  Tesla reminds me of the Wild West early days of the auto industry, when lots of small manufacturers competed for business and the competition drove innovation.

Outside of the auto realm, the California high speed rail Authority hopes for up to $4 billion in federal dollars to jump-start production.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress in February contains $8 billion to be doled out to states for development of high-speed rail service and passenger rail service among cities.

California wants half.

“As of now, we have close to $4 billion worth of things we can show can be done within the time limit” of the act, said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency charged with building a speedy rail line connecting Northern and Southern California through the Central Valley.

Morshed and other California boosters are trying to make the case with federal transportation officials that when it comes to high-speed rail in the United States, the Golden State is king.

“All factors considered, we are at the top,” Morshed said. “We are the only ones with a real high-speed rail project. Everyone else is just improving their current (conventional) rail service.”

While the $10 billion in bonds authorized by last November’s Prop. 1A (the good one) have yet to be sold on the open market, federal stimulus dollars would really help get HSR off the ground.  And such an investment would get some of the preliminary work out of the way and spur private investment, which would be looking toward a shorter lead time for their payoff.  Our friends at the CA HSR blog, including some guy named Robert, have more.  You can quibble with the strength of the SacBee article, but you cannot deny that the President has made high speed rail a priority and California’s entity is clearly the furthest along, suggesting that we will be in line for a good portion of those stimulus dollars.

Despite political dysfunction, innovators will allow California to move to a new economy based on clean energy and efficiency.  Hopefully the political leaders will follow, having failed to lead.

News Of Local Jerks

Two of the eight “Obama Republicans,” that is, members of the GOP delegation in the House whose districts went for Barack Obama in November, are in the news of late, and I think we can draw some conclusions about their behavior.

First of all, Dan Lungren held a “town hall meeting” in his district last week.  I put “town hall meeting” in quotes because unlike actual town hall meetings, attendees weren’t allowed to ask questions:

After a brief introduction by Elk Grove Mayor Patrick Hume, Lungren made it clear that the format of this ‘townhall’ meeting would not include direct questioning from the audience. Rather constituents were to fill out a questionnaire and submit for indirect questioning by Hume.

Lungren’s reasoning was that he had received several constituent complaints that other district meetings were “so rambunctious” that they were afraid to come. To make the meeting open, Lungren said questions would be answered only by those filling out the questionnaires.

During the course of the meeting there were 15 questionnaires read covering a variety of topics, none of them pointed or very relative, in our opinion, to the staggering recession we find ourselves in. Lungren talked about his favorite topics of immigration, deficit spending and judiciary matters.

Hume, who had a table full of submitted questionnaires in front of him, never seemed to ask the questions as written. Hume was either being overly polite, or didn’t want to incur the wrath of a congressman […]

“If this is a townhall meeting, we should be allowed to be allowed to make comments,” said Elk Grove resident Mike Monasky. Immediately Monasky was loudly told by city charter commission member Christopher Orrock to be quiet.

Now there’s someone who doesn’t want to be held accountable by his constituents.  That makes the Bush “town hall meetings” look like free-for-alls.

Then there’s Buck McKeon.  His home in Santa Clarita was burglarized.  We’re sorry for him and his wife.  But we did not expect McKeon to push a political angle.

A thief, who has since been arrested, broke into the McKeons’ home on the morning of March 4 and stole jewelry from the master bedroom, said Bob Haueter, McKeon’s 2010 campaign manager. The rest of the home was not disturbed, he said […]

The burglary was mentioned in a McKeon fundraising letter, dated March 25, that discussed McKeon’s opposition to the Employee Free-Choice Act – a bill that would make it easier for workers to unionize. The legislation is backed by President Barack Obama, whose political roots are in Chicago.

The letter says the labor legislation is “right out of Stalin’s playbook” and part of the president’s “socialist agenda.” A note at the bottom of the letter, written by Patricia McKeon, read:

“As if things couldn’t get any worse, our home was just broken into while we were in D.C. Some observant neighbors were able to identify the thieves and get the license plate number of the car they used.

“You won’t believe this; the car is registered to a person in Chicago! Just know this, no matter what happens to us, Buck and I won’t back down.”

Are you kidding me?  Apparently we’re to believe that President Obama has a cadre of thieves he’s dispatching across the country to Republican homes.  While I admit that would be a simply ingenious strategy (note to Patricia McKeon: I’m joking), I simply don’t think he’s concerning himself with an underworld network.

Can we conclude that these two are maybe just a little bit scared, as they see their stranglehold on their districts slipping away?

SEIU, Other Top Unions Oppose Prop. 1A

I touched on this in Quick Hits, but Kevin Yamamura has now followed up.  The SEIU state council, representing 700,000 workers in the state, has teamed with two other unions to oppose Prop. 1A.

Service Employees International Union’s California State Council, which says it represents 700,000 workers, has teamed up with the California Faculty Association and the California Federation of Teachers to form a committee opposing Proposition 1A. The ballot measure would limit state spending in good fiscal years, diverting money to a “rainy-day fund.” But it also would extend $16 billion worth of temporary tax increases on sales, income and vehicles to 2013.

“Prop 1A won’t be able to do what its supporters claim,” said Marty Hittleman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, in a statement. “This constitutional amendment, supported by the governor and legislators was developed with no public scrutiny and won’t stop the budget chaos. Once voters read this proposal with their own eyes, they will see that it is flawed and overly complicated, and will give extraordinary new and unrestricted power to the governor and his political appointees, with no checks and balances.”

The response from Budget Reform Now, the Governor’s ad hoc group supporting the measures, is unintentionally hilarious, because it frames once again with the same tired doomsaying rhetoric:

“This is disappointing since those who we hurt the most should Propositions 1A thru 1F not pass will be teachers, schools and the hard-working families of SEIU,” said Julie Soderlund, spokeswoman for Budget Reform Now, proponents of the six budget-related ballot measures. “During these tough economic times, it is unfair to do anything that will likely cost many people their jobs.”

Way to advocate for your position, guys.

…Meanwhile, Arnold can’t leave his house to advocate for the ballot measures because everybody hates him.  Boy, Misters Brown, Newsom, and Villaraigosa, you’ve all really hitched your wagon to a star.  Way to go.

An Apostle For Fantasyland

Jerry Brown’s long interview with Roberts and Trounstine at CalBuzz sums up so much of what is wrong with establishment Sacramento Democrats, I hardly know where to begin.  Essentially he values the need for “practical management” instead of “new ideas” at a time when the old ideas and the old ways of doing business have led us to the worst sustained budget crisis in the state’s history and an unmatched crisis of confidence among the state’s citizens.  But Brown, adopting the high Broderist tone that has failed the state so often of late, thinks that the real problems in Sacramento can be solved through good hard common sense.

We wanted to interview Brown to ask his views on seven key questions we posed to all the candidates in one of our first posts. In his own fashion, he addressed most of them. However, Brown staunchly refused to specify what combination of cuts and tax hikes he would support to deal with chronic deficits, beyond stressing his view that California is a “very high tax” state and dismissing as politically impractical the proposal to amend Proposition 13 by taxing commercial and industrial property at higher rates than residential property.

“Anyone who answers that (tax and cuts question) will never have a chance to be governor,” he said. “It’s very hard to discuss with particularity anything that can be turned into (campaign) fodder.”

Moreover, he added, “dictating from the corner office does not work . . . If eliminating the structural problems in the California budget were easy, Wilson, Davis and Schwarzenegger would have done it.”

How would he deal with fiercely ideological legislators on the left and the right?

“I’m going to become an apostle of common sense,” he said. “I will disabuse them of their ill-conceived predilections.”

“There’s an embedded partisanship that has to become disembedded,” he said. “In my bones, I’m not that partisan. I’m an independent thinker. That’s my tradition. I’ve been wary of ideology since I left the Sacred Heart Novitiate (in 1960).”

So the guy who wants to lead the state thinks that he can show that leadership by avoiding specifics for two years.  Granted, this worked for the current occupant of the Governor’s office, but it’s deeply cynical and the opposite of courage.  In this defensive crouch, Brown shows his fear of the dwindling anti-tax forces in California, and how he still views the state from the lens of Prop. 13 in 1978.  The statement that Pete Wilson, Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger would have eliminated the structural problems in the budget if they could, because they’re such a bold crew of reformers, is self-evidently ridiculous.  And I don’t even know what to say about the “apostle of common sense” comment.  He must have shut his eyes for the past decade as the Yacht Party grew more and more ideologically rigid and oriented themselves like a crime family of hijackers and loansharks instead of a political party.  Appeals to common sense to a group that actually favored letting the state fall into bankruptcy makes no sense at all.  Brown huffed that such a “kind of subversive attitude is unacceptable.”  You hear?  Unacceptable!  Or no tea for anyone!

Then there’s this incredible passage:

We asked Brown this key question: What do you want to do as governor?

He quickly ticked off four key concerns with specific ideas in each area: Renewable energy; prison reform; education reform; water policy (we’ll report details on these in future posts).

Prison reform???!?  Jerry Brown has been the poster child for furthering the tough on crime pose in Sacramento, trying to throw out the federal receiver who has been guaranteeing the constitutional right of prisoners to receive health care.  He opposed Prop. 5 last year at the behest of the prison guards who didn’t want to see the nonviolent offenders who overflow our prisons re-routed into treatment.  This post tells you everything you need to know about where Jerry Brown stands on “prison reform.”

Since I am a co-author of Prop. 5, Jerry contacted me a couple of weeks back. Said he wanted to talk about Proposition 5. He called me on my cell phone while I was participating in a panel discussion about California’s prison crisis sponsored by U.C. Berkeley. I decided to duck out of the symposium. Months earlier, I had reached out to Jerry to discuss the details of Prop. 5, but those calls went unreturned. I figured that, if Jerry Brown was now ready to talk about Prop. 5, that would be a good use of my time.

“OK,” I say, “let’s talk.” Turns out, Jerry doesn’t want to chat about public policy. He wants to vent. He lectures me for five minutes about how, when he’s governor, he’ll solve the state’s decades-old prison crisis in his first month in office. He neglects to mention that the roots of the prison crisis date back to his first stint as governor.

Jerry pounces: “Prop. 5 is anti-democratic,” he complains. I tell him that that’s an odd attack, particularly when Prop. 5 creates an independent citizen’s oversight commission, appointed by the legislature and governor, to bring transparency and change to the state’s prison system. And what could be more democratic than a voter initiative?

Jerry switches tack. He argues that Prop. 5 deprives him — and by “him” it is clear Jerry means the next governor of California — of too much power over prisons. I ask him whether he’s actually read Prop. 5. No response. I note that Prop. 5 in fact allows the governor to appoint two officials to head up the state’s prison and parole agency, not just the one allowed under current law. The governor also gets to appoint more than half the members of new oversight panels that, in turn, must run public hearings, take public comment and publish audits and reports on their activities. These panels provide new levels of transparency and accountability for prisons and for treatment programs statewide […]

Jerry wants off the phone. “Okay. Listen. This thing is complicated,” he says. “I need you to walk me through Prop. 5, line by line, so I can understand what you are doing here.”

Then Abramson, the co-author of Prop. 5, tried to call Brown every day for months with no response.

Here’s Jerry Brown on the reform that would make the greatest difference in Sacramento, the one that would allow elected lawmakers to do their job:

While not a fan of the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass budgets, Brown said he doesn’t think there is a “mechanical” cure to structural financial problems.

Sounding most unlike an old-school Jerry Brown Democrat, he argued repeatedly that regulations making California less competitive than surrounding states must be challenged. “We have to make sure that regulation does not curtail business,” he said, echoing the Chamber of Commerce more than the Sierra Club.

I cannot express enough how wrong it would be to put the fragile state of affairs of California into the hands of someone this afflicted with bipartisan fetishism, and so enamored of himself that he thinks he can bridge partisan divides without fixing the structural problems that exist to wall off those divides.  Jerry Brown is a duplicitous fantasist, simply put.

More Fear From Establishment Special Election Supporters

Jerry Brown has become the last potential gubernatorial candidate to make a view on one of the propositions on May 19, which is part of a pattern, as Brown has studiously tried to avoid giving any legitimate opinion whatsoever throughout the winter and spring.  He supports Prop. 1A, not because he can advocate for its substance, but because it represented a compromise:

The 2010 contender for governor was tepid in his endorsement of the measure, but credited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders for their effort in crafting a compromise: “The budget thing is complicated and it is daunting,” he said. “They tried . . . and did the best they could to come up with something.”

“You can’t make the perfect the enemy of the possible,” Brown told calbuzz.

It’s a ringing endorsement.  And I’m thrilled that the leading candidate for Governor finds the budget “daunting” – very reassuring.  In addition, he declined to take a position on the other 5 measures because “I have to read them.”  And let’s be clear that only John Garamendi, among Democratic hopefuls, opposes Prop. 1A.  Maybe he read it.

The League of Conservation Voters, similiarly, endorsed the special election ballot measures without telling voters what the propositions would do, but with a healthy amount of fear.

Failure of these measures would open up a gaping hole in the budget and leave critical protections for our health, safety, and prosperous future at great risk […] The measures are not perfect, but they are our best option to protect critical funding for essential environmental, public health, and education services […] We need all of these props to pass, or California will lose more than $23 billion over the next four fiscal years-forcing billions upon billions in deeper cuts to education and other popular services […] When the state was near a complete shutdown this February, a small minority of legislators tried to use the budget meltdown to extract policy concessions on some of California’s most fundamental environmental protections in exchange for budget votes. Thanks to your help, we were able to fight back and defeat the most significant proposed rollbacks. If the Propositions fail in May, the budget deficit for next year will add an additional $6 billion dollars in cuts to essential programs to an already impossible budget.

That’s not even true on the merits.  The Governor and the Yacht Party GOT those concessions on environmental protections, exacting delays in regulating diesel pollution, to use just one example of the many concessions.  The CLCV is shading the truth and appealing to fear.

Calitics will have their special election ballot endorsements early this week.

CA-32: Calitics Interviews Emanuel Pleitez

The CA-32 race to replace Labor Secretary has less than six weeks to go until the primary.  We know about the two major candidates; Board of Equalization member Judy Chu (not to be confused with Betty Chu, who will appear directly above her on the ballot and surely cause some errors among voters) and State Senator Gil Cedillo, whose extreme spending of campaign contributions on shopping, meals and lavish hotels made the LA Times this weekend and caused a stir.

Somewhat less remarked-upon has been the candidacy of Emanuel Pleitez, a product of East Los Angeles and Woodrow Wilson High School, who matriculated at Stanford, joined the advisory board of Voto Latino (a group that encourages voter registration and engagement for the Latino community), worked for Democratic lawmakers like Antonio Villaraigosa, Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton, and worked on the Obama transition team at the Treasury Department.  On Friday I had the opportunity to chat with Pleitez about his life experiences, the financial crisis, housing policy and a host of other issues.  A paraphrase of that conversation follows.

(As a side note, this story about one of the volunteers on the campaign, who traveled all the way from Santiago, Chile to work on it, is pretty amazing.)

Calitics: Tell me about your experiences that have brought you to this run for Congress.

Emanuel Pleitez: You know, after college and working in the private sector at Goldman Sachs, I was able to travel a lot.  And I think visiting 27 countries gave me a new perspective on what the challenges are out there in the world.  When I would go to South Africa or India, China, Brazil, I would visit the universities, and the slums, and see their struggles, and it really made me think about the issues of global poverty.  I even drove a taxicab in Myanmar!  And what I took away from all that is that the best way to create change is to start in your own backyard.  And that’s what we’re doing in this campaign.

Calitics: So how are things going?

EP: Well, we have 25 full-time staff working every day.  And our main focus is door-to-door, face-to-face contact.  We’re out canvassing every day.  A lot of people tell me that they think we’re the only candidate in the race, because we’re the only one they see.  So we feel pretty good about our position.

Calitics: Now, you worked on the transition in the Treasury Department, and one central concern that a lot of people have had with Treasury is the lack of staffed positions at the undersecretary level, and the belief that Tim Geithner has basically had to go it alone over there.  How should people look at the transition’s performance in that respect?

EP: I agree with that criticism of Treasury.  I had nothing to do with personnel, I worked in other departments.  But there are many reasons for the lack of senior staff, and I wouldn’t discount the ability and importance of the career civil servants working in the Department, who are doing a fantastic job.

Calitics: This week, the Congressional Oversight Panel released a preliminary report on the TARP program and Treasury’s performance, and they were highly critical of the lack of transparency and clarity over some of these programs, as well as a lack of accountability for the big banks.  How would you assess the various programs offered to this point?

EP: I don’t have all the details of the COP report.  My inclination is to defend Secretary Geithner, but I want people to be critical.  I think what he’s trying to do is return confidence to the markets and get credit flowing again, and we’re seeing signs that the plans are starting to work.

Calitics: How would you approach the situation with the banks.  Would you just recapitalize them forever, or seek a Swedish-style receivership or a liquidation of the insolvent firms?

EP: I would consider a receivership, but I wouldn’t make that the first thing on the table because of the expense involved and the danger to the markets.  But clearly, recapitalization alone won’t work, that’s just making capital disappear.

Calitics: What’s the biggest problem in the economy that we’re facing at this point?

EP: The biggest problem is the foreclosures right now.  Some of them are in rural districts are suburbs and they’re second, third and fourth homes, but for families in urban districts like mine, a foreclosure means the loss of everything you’ve got.

Calitics: Would you support bankruptcy judges being able to modify the terms of a primary loan for borrowers?  Isn’t there a problem with modifying securitized loans, in that the people holding the securities that have been modified can sue the loan servicers for illegally changing the terms of the security?

EP: That is a problem.  But as I understand it, cram-down is more of a threat to incentivize loan modifications and keep people in their homes.  Which is what we have to do.  Investors will get hurt anyway if the loan forecloses.  Somehow, the lenders and the investors and the home-owners have to come to an accommodation, and in that process the primary goal should be keeping people in their homes.  I wasn’t initially open to principal write-downs, but I am more so now, because we’re seeing that the interest-only modifications are not working, and people are being forced into foreclosure just a few months later.

Calitics: What are some of the other challenges facing the economy that you want to deal with in Congress.

EP: Obviously, we still need major stimulus to save jobs and transition into a new economic future.  A large part of my district is at or near the poverty rate, and we need help in these tough economic times.  I expect another trillion dollars to be spent by the government.  In my district, we need investments in public transportation and clean energy programs to reduce emissions and create manufacturing jobs.  There’s a program here called “La Causa,” which targets the high school dropout rate, and gets those kids into vocational programs for green jobs, whether it’s solar panel installation or something like that, so that they can be prepared for the 21st century economy.  We need more of that.  And we need investment in education, because any dollars spent get the greatest return in education.

Calitics: Do you plan on joining any ideological caucus in Congress?

EP: I haven’t really given it much thought, but I don’t think so.  I think all political is local, and I’d rather focus on helping my local community and responding to the concerns of my district.  Maybe I’ll join the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that should be safe for me.  (Laughs.)

Calitics: Well, thank you for talking to us today.

EP: Thank you.

The New PVI Ratings Are Out! The New PVI Ratings Are Out!

Charlie Cook’s PVI (Partisan Voting Index) ratings have become an indispensable tool for quickly identifying the partisan lean of any particular Congressional district in the country.  Cook basically takes the Presidential results of the past two election cycles in a particular district and matches them against the results of the entire country to come up with the PVI number.  If a district is R+3, for example, that basically means it is 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole.  I like the Cook PVI because it isn’t based on raw registration numbers, but actual electoral performance that is somewhat uniform across the country.

Thanks to the release of full election data by Congressional district throughout the country, Cook can now calculate the new PVI ratings for every seat.  The California numbers are worth considering. (I’ve put all 53 on the flip).  As Cook notes, there are 8 districts in the state with “Obama Republicans”; that is, Republican Congressmen in districts that Obama carried (There are no “McCain Democrats”).  Those districts are:

CA-03 (Lungren), CA-24 (Gallegly), CA-25 (McKeon), CA-26 (Dreier), CA-44 (Calvert), CA-45 (Bono Mack), CA-48 (Campbell), CA-50 (Bilbray)

Of those seats, the three with the closest PVI ratings are CA-26, CA-45 and CA-50, all which have R+3.  CA-24 is an R+4.  And the rest in this group are R+6.  Keep in mind that 2004 Bush-Kerry stats are factored into this, so there may be a bit of lag from the actual nature of the district.  

Of these seats, the only Republican-held seat to get noticeably more Democratic from the 2004 set of ratings was CA-48, which went from an R+8 to an R+6.  Several Democratic-held seats shifted in that fashion as well, as the largest partisan shifts in the country were “disproportionately western and suburban,” says Cook.

The most Republican district in the state is CA-22 (McCarthy), which is the 44th most Republican in the country at R+16.  The most Democratic is CA-09 (Lee), the 5th most Democratic in the country at D+37.  A couple other notes:

• Jerry McNerney still holds an R+1 seat.  However, this is not surprising, since Democrats hold 34 of the 50 seats between R+2 and D+2.

• CA-10 grew slightly more Democratic this time, at D+11, further destroying the myth that it’s a moderate seat.  Actual somewhat close (though not in danger) Democratic seats include CA-18 (Cardoza, D+4), CA-20 (Costa, D+5) and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez, D+4).

• Turning to races from last year, CA-46 remains moderately competitive at R+6, while CA-04 (McClintock) is R+10, a testament to how strong Charlie Brown was to even compete.

Now, this just measures the partisan lean of a district, not the partisanship of a particular member of Congress.  A better judge for that would be the Progressive Punch score weighted for district tilt, an excellent measure of whether or not a member is out of step with their district.  In California, the strongest Dems are Barbara Lee, Linda Sanchez and Lynn Woolsey, while the weakest Dems are Jim Costa, Jerry McNerney and Jane Harman (and remember, that’s district-weighted).

A lot to digest here, but much of it is familiar – we have multiple potential Congressional targets, and have for a number of cycles, but just need to use resources and ground talent better.

CA 1 Thompson, Mike (D): D+13

CA 2 HERGER, WALLY (R): R+11  

CA 3 LUNGREN, DANIEL E. (R): R+ 6  

CA 4 MCCLINTOCK, TOM (R): R+10

CA 5 Matsui, Doris O. (D): D+15

CA 6 Woolsey, Lynn C. (D): D+23

CA 7 Miller, George (D): D+19

CA 8 Pelosi, Nancy (D): D+35

CA 9 Lee, Barbara (D): D+37

CA10 Tauscher, Ellen O. (D): D+11

CA11 McNerney, Jerry (D): R+ 1

CA12 Speier, Jackie (D): D+23

CA13 Stark, Fortney Pete (D): D+22  

CA14 Eshoo, Anna G. (D): D+21

CA15 Honda, Michael M. (D): D+15

CA16 Lofgren, Zoe (D): D+16

CA17 Farr, Sam (D): D+19  

CA18 Cardoza, Dennis A. (D): D+ 4

CA19 RADANOVICH, GEORGE P. (R): R+ 9  

CA20 Costa, Jim (D): D+ 5  

CA21 NUNES, DEVIN G. (R): R+13

CA22 MCCARTHY, KEVIN (R): R+16    

CA23 Capps, Lois (D): D+12  

CA24 GALLEGLY, ELTON (R): R+ 4  

CA25 MCKEON, HOWARD P. ‘BUCK’ (R): R+ 6  

CA26 DREIER, DAVID (R): R+ 3

CA27 Sherman, Brad (D): D+13 349

CA28 Berman, Howard L. (D): D+23  

CA29 Schiff, Adam B. (D): D+14

CA30 Waxman, Henry A. (D): D+18

CA31 Becerra, Xavier (D): D+29  

CA32 Solis, Hilda L. (D): D+15

CA33 Watson, Diane E. (D): D+35  

CA34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D): D+22

CA35 Waters, Maxine (D): D+31

CA36 Harman, Jane (D): D+12

CA37 Richardson, Laura (D): D+26

CA38 Napolitano, Grace F. (D): D+18  

CA39 Sanchez, Linda T. (D): D+12

CA40 ROYCE, EDWARD R. (R): R+ 8

CA41 LEWIS, JERRY (R): R+10

CA42 MILLER, GARY G. (R): R+10

CA43 Baca, Joe (D): D+13  

CA44 CALVERT, KEN (R): R+ 6  

CA45 BONO MACK, MARY (R): R+ 3

CA46 ROHRABACHER, DANA (R): R+ 6

CA47 Sanchez, Loretta (D): D+ 4

CA48 CAMPBELL, JOHN (R): R+ 6

CA49 ISSA, DARRELL E. (R): R+10  

CA50 BILBRAY, BRIAN P. (R): R+ 3

CA51 Filner, Bob (D): D+ 8

CA52 HUNTER, DUNCAN D., JR. (R): R+ 9  

CA53 Davis, Susan A. (D): D+14

Special Election Fight Becoming Establishment v. Grassroots

The establishment in both parties continue to close ranks around the May 19 special election, even as the grassroots continues to reject it.  Today Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed all six ballot measures, asserting that they will “bring stability back to California’s budget system,” like any artificial spending cap that forces spending $16-$20 billion dollars below initial baseline estimates during an economic crisis where state spending is needed urgently tends to do.  Without question, Villaraigosa, a potential candidate for Governor, sees that giant pot of CTA money being tossed around in support of the measures and figures one of the candidates could draft off of that nicely in the primaries.

At the local level, more and more Democratic clubs are opposing the ballot measures, because unlike the establishment, they have read them and calculated that they would put the state in an objectively worse situation, and they are unmoved by the idle threats of Armageddon casually tossed out by the Governor and his minions.  The dichotomy is both interesting and revealing.

Meanwhile, in maybe the lamest online initiative effort since the invention of Compuserve, Abel Maldonado’s tears have created  “Reform For Change,” a site dedicated to the petty, self-righteous, useless Prop. 1F measure that would eliminate raises for lawmakers and staff during an economic downturn.  In the silly video accompanying the site, Maldonado’s tears tell us that “we can fundamentally reform California and change it forever,” through apparently passing a .0001% change in funding for state lawmakers that is dealt with through an independent commission and not “the legislators themselves” (one of many lies on this site).

Sigh.

UPDATE: Apparently Antonio said this today – “If we don’t pass these initiatives CA will go into bankruptcy.”  That’s just ignorant fearmongering.  These people should be ashamed of themselves.

CA-10: Anthony Woods

We’ve been hearing rumors about this for some time, but Lisa Vordebrueggen went public, so now we can begin to tell this story.  Anthony Woods, an African-American, openly gay Iraq War veteran with two tours of service who publicly came out to challenge the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, may enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.

Harvard Magazine’s January-February edition features a very interesting story about Woods’ decision to leave the Army. Woods has a masters degree from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Woods was born on Travis Air Force Base and attended high school in Fairfield, according to a spokesman. He is now considering moving back home and running for Congress.

Woods was traveling and unavailable for comment today but as soon as I have an opportunity to speak with him at length, I will file an updated post about him.

I was able to speak with someone knowledgeable about Woods and his decision-making process today, and he told me that he would figure out whether or not to run “in the coming weeks.”  With no timetable for Tauscher’s confirmation, certainly Woods, who also staffed for New York Gov. David Paterson, has some time.  

Everyone who I’ve talked to about this characterizes Woods as a deeply impressive individual.  He fought in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq for two tours before deciding to take a stand on their discriminatory policy with respect to gays and lesbians.  Here’s a bit from that Harvard Magazine article Vordebrueggen cited:

In early November, Woods learned he would be “eliminated” from the army on the grounds of “moral and professional dereliction” and required to repay $35,000-the amount of his scholarship to attend the Kennedy School.

A military career may seem a curious choice for a young man who is gay or even questioning his orientation. But for the son of a single mother, growing up in an Air Force town in northern California, acceptance to West Point was an honor-and an opportunity-beyond compare. Woods focused on the professional to the exclusion of the personal; with the country at war, that wasn’t hard. But two years at Harvard gave him space to think-and to face his dismal prospects for upward mobility in an organization with an explicit homosexuality ban and a strong culture of marriage and children. Even if he had stayed closeted, he says, “It wasn’t going to be possible for me to fit the mold, and I knew that because of that, there was going to be a glass ceiling.”

Even after the invasive court-martial process-the military conducts interviews with friends and family to verify homosexuality, presumably to prevent fraud, for instance by soldiers who wish to avoid an additional tour in Iraq-Woods is reluctant to malign the officers who carried out his investigation. He says they are simply implementing a policy. Change might come from Congress, but Woods believes the Supreme Court is a more likely venue: “I think it’s going to take a landmark court case, like Brown v. Board of Education.”

That we would bar talented people who want to serve their country from that option makes absolutely no sense at all.  But perhaps this is a blessing.  Perhaps Woods can return to his hometown and find another way to serve – as part of a fresh group of lawmakers who have a new insight to these time-worn challenges we face and maybe some new strategies to tackle them.  I hope to interview Woods very shortly should he decide to enter the race.  Stay tuned.