All posts by Lucas O'Connor

Primary Polling

There’s a new Gallup poll of California which finds Senator Clinton and Senator McCain currently leading in California.  What’s interesting is the margins.  Clinton leads Obama by a 47-35 margin with Edwards at 10, tighter than the race has been since about a year ago.  Which is notable in itself, but also compared to national polling (average of the last seven national polls from Pollster.com):  Clinton over Obama and Edwards, 44.1% – 32.3% – 13%.  Those polls, unlike the new Zogby poll, include Kucinich bouncing between 1 and 4 percent.  I’d discuss the Republican side but the national polling all has Thompson so it doesn’t really reflect the current situation.

So my question is, who’s leading who?

Also: LA Times/CNN/Politico poll of California makes the Dem race at 49-32-11.  Also mentions that “3 in 10 likely voters said they could change their minds.”

State of FISA

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Update: Everything failed cloture.  McConnell’s bad amendment failed and so did Reid’s good-ish 30-day extension.  Which means that nothing has changed and we’re back to where everything was last week. Except that now President Bush has some nice fodder for his speech.  Updated update: Senators Boxer and Feinstein voted against cloture on McConnell’s and for cloture on Reid’s extension.  Good votes all.

All sorts of interesting developments on the FISA debate over the weekend as we swing into the next phase of the showdown.  First, the New York Times blasted leading Senate Democrats in an editorial for even considering an extension of Bush’s protections.  It also went ahead to say what so many of us know already: the notion that amnesty for telecom companies is anything but an attempt to cover up what this administration has been up to is…well…crazy.  The President contends that amnesty is necessary to get cooperation in the future, but it just doesn’t pass the smell test.  If the law is followed, it’s not a problem.  And if there’s any question about legality, the time to sort it all out isn’t well after the fact.  That’s the whole point of having a FISA court in the first place.

Senator Feinstein holds one of the votes that could be vacillating this week as FISA winds through vote after vote.  Call her and speak your mind about the ugly notion of providing amnesty to the telecoms.  She has many phone numbers:

202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)

310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)

415-393-0707 (San Francisco)

619-231-9712 (San Diego)

559-485-7430 (Fresno)

Either way, here we find ourselves.  Tim Tagaris noted over at OpenLeft that President Bush will veto any temporary extension of FISA.  Which means a lot of things, but the major one is that we can expect some theatrics.  There’s a State of the Union address coming soon, and as a result there’s a full chamber of Senators in town.  Including the ones with names like Clinton, McCain, and Obama.  Senators like that bring cameras, and Senators like cameras.

So here are the benchmarks to be watching for.  Senators Clinton and Obama will be joining with most (hopefully all) Democrats against cloture on Mitch McConnell’s odious offering on FISA.  That’s at 4:30pm eastern and is a good start.  Reid will be looking to pass a 30-day extension (the one Bush would apparently veto).  For now, this is the big one.

Rubber hits the road AFTER the State of the Union when there’s no fodder for the speech to be had.  The President is likely to establish the framework for the rest of the week during his speech, and it’s later in the week that Dodd’s filibuster will likely come to a head.  As a result, it will be when we get the real test of who stands where and who is willing to lead on this issue.

And yes, I’ll be keeping at least one eye on Senator Feinstein there.  She’s been pretty willing to buy the line of crap about telecom amnesty being important, which quite frankly it isn’t.  When it really comes down to it, where will she be? We’re gonna find out.

The Courage Campaign is one of many organizations fighting to make sure our Democratic Senators hang tough and beat Bush on this issue.  Help out with a call to Senator Feinstein and remind her we’re paying attention.

Schwarzenegger Regrets Self, Flip Flops Open Thread

Earlier this week, our Governor sat down with members of the LA Times staff and lamented the impetuous naiveté of his youth (2003):

In that campaign, he labeled many state legislators as inept. Now, he spoke of how it would be a “disaster” for term limits to force some of the same politicians from their offices. He scoffed at the notion that ridding the state of the “waste, fraud and abuse” he railed against in his early days would actually do much to help California’s finances. He no longer insists that the state’s troubled schools can be repaired without spending more.

“I have learned a lot of things where I felt one way before I went into office, and all of a sudden you learn things are not quite this way and you change,” he said. “People call it flip-flopping. I would rather flip-flop when I see something is a wrong idea than get stuck with it and stay with it and [keep making] the same mistake.”

Consider this your weekend Open Thread for Quick Hit comments, recipes for electoral victory, ruminations on how things got so bad/good, tips for me at the club tonight.  I’ll be seeing Yeasayer.  Observe this visual representation of their song “2080” which should, if you’re alive, make your socks go up and down.

UPDATE: from the previous open thread’s comments: (brian): IndyMedia convention in Santa Cruz continues over the weekend. Sounds quite interesting.  

I found Yeasayer via Said The Gramaphone back in May and would just like to mention that it’s about DAMN time they made it to San Diego.

On the back of one song, Yeasayer have become my biggest discovery of the year so far. We all often hear music we like – catchy melodies, clasped lyrics. (I share such stuff with you here.) But the rarer feeling is to be exhilarated by something. To feel in a song a promise: the suggestion of a bigger, wider, longer song that’s as yet unsung. Stepping into an empty street and smelling the pepper fragrance of a fire.

“2080” is Fleetwood Mac, Akron/Family, Paul Simon, Arcade Fire, Cree chant, schoolyard song. It’s dancing alone under a streetlight, in your room with the lights on, or in a club on those hot strange first hours of the new year. It’s a night garden. It’s a pop song. It’s soft rock, New Wave, and art music. It’s got heart-thump drums, distant xylophone, clarinet, guitars, voices in harmony. It’s got piano and backwards-playing tape. It’s got the kitchen sink — and all these things under starlight.

I haven’t heard Yeasayer’s (upcoming) album. I haven’t seen them live. All I know is that “2080” is a string of good ideas, a necklace of a hundred rubies. It’s weird and great and not like the work of any other band I can think of. There is something in its beauty & boldness that makes me very, very excited; like I’ve stung my finger on a rose-thorn.

John Edwards steps up on Feinstein and FISA

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

FISA is grabbing national attention today as the debate rages on the floor of the Senate, and on the heels of Senator Feinstein’s response to Robert’s post at Courage, Senator John Edwards is calling for citizen pressure on Senators Boxer and Feinstein.  The heat is on and Edwards isn’t mincing words on this one- “It’s wrong for your government to spy on you.”  No kidding.

Senator Feinstein’s parsing position that would give away the keys to the store and validate immunity for Bush on this issue is a classic example of Democrats conceding the issue without a fight.  When Bismarck declared politics to be the art of the possible, it’s hard to imagine he meant the art of what is immediately possible.  Time and again, this administration has demonstrated that it is not only foolish but reckless to operate in “good faith” when the Constitution is involved, and moving constitutional judicial proceedings behind closed doors doesn’t inspire much good faith in me.  

Anyways, the leadership from John Edwards on this issue is much appreciated and a big boost to proponents of basic freedom.  It appears that Senator Clinton will not support the Dodd filibuster by returning to Washington and Obama has, so far as I know, not moved to add support either.  That’s disappointing but not entirely unexpected as the battle continues over every single Senator.

Keep up the pressuring phone calls to make sure that Senator Feinstein knows we’re serious about this one.

Check out the Edwards email on the flip.

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It’s wrong for your government to spy on you. That’s why I’m asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give “retroactive immunity” to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush’s illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now — which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

   Barbara Boxer, (D): (202) 224-3553

   Dianne Feinstein, (D): (202) 224-3841

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush’s illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power — including joining Senator Dodd’s efforts to filibuster this legislation — to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards

January 24, 2008

A Progressive City Attorney

Warning: Super-nerdy wonkishness ahead

Last night I attended the inaugural event by the San Diego chapter of the American Constitution Society; a panel exploring What Is a Progressive View of the City Attorney’s Office?  Since I don’t know enough about the inner workings, hopes and fears of the current city attorney’s race (just that it’s likely to be an 18-way slapfight), it seemed like a good place to start getting geared up.  If the streets are going to run with the blood of the nonbelievers, I should be prepared.  And prepared I am now approaching.

It got pretty deep into the wonky legal weeds of theory, so occasionally I was out of my depth on jargon or tangents, but I think the fundamental discussion can be broken down pretty simply.  Essentially the question is whether, by nature, the “public interest” can be served by a city attorney.  Given that the public interest means different things to different people, does the pursuit of such service inherently lead to the office being overtly and entirely political as the city attorney picks which version of “public interest” will be served?  The argument put forth by one of the panelists- Professor David McGowan- that a city attorney should “aim low” for a role cleaning up messes but not being proactive about policy seemed to be the most ripe as a jumping off point as it seems to lay bare all the apparent contradictions in how the city attorney position has been conceived in the first place.

Cross posted at San Diego Politico

The construct of the city attorney’s office in San Diego names the City of San Diego as the “client.”  That is, in inelegant corporate terms (and I suppose at least partly in my opinion), the city attorney protects the brand name- not necessarily the employees of the company (government officials) or necessarily the customers (citizens).  Given that the role of the city attorney is not directly to serve the general public (and sometimes to work directly against them presumably), this would seem to make the city attorney unique among other elected offices.  From President to State Assembly to Judge and Sheriff, every other elected official is put into the job directly in service to the people.  Keep them safe from crime or injustice in the non-political aspects, direct policy that protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the legislative and executive side.  But the city attorney does not exist to serve the public as an inherent or necessary function of the job.

So how should voters be utilizing the city attorney when weighing candidates?  It seems to me that the notion of aiming low and cleaning up the messes as they come can be extrapolated into a notion that the city attorney should strive to be as apolitical as possible.  A proactive, politicized city attorney, the argument goes, puts policy discretion in inappropriate hands.  But the inappropriate-ness seems to be a semantic issue.  The simple title of “mayor” or “councilmember” or “city attorney” carry no inherent value- it is what people make it out to be.  And certainly one thing we’ve seen at the national, state and local levels over the past decade is that the balance of power is fluid.  The relative power of executive, legislative and judicial branches within any political unit is in a constant state of motion and relative ascendancy/decendancy.  Some units might have a strong mayor now after a strong legislature four years ago; some might be going the other direction.  So as long as the city attorney is an elected position serving an autonomous role in the city government, it seems to me that the office is an element of the power structure that voters must use to maintain the desired balance of power.

None of this really gets to the question of what is a progressive view of the City Attorney’s office?  The underpinning of the notion of a City Attorney seems to be that a healthy civic brand is the unifying public interest of a community.  That is, by protecting the integrity of the city as an entity all the competing political views within are enabled to healthily and properly work themselves out.  And the progressive in me certainly likes that notion.  So how does a city attorney actually do that in practice?  I’m wary of the notion that being apolitical is progressive, although I don’t think that progressivism is inherently ideological in itself.  I have a difficult time with the notion that removing oneself from the political process can help to bring about a particular sort of political end.  Minimizing influence as a way of maximizing influence the notion would be, and I’m just not ready to buy onto that theoretical train.

So that leaves me with a progressive role that’s about as close to clearly defined and uncontroversial as any political role can be.  Not just clean, but open government.  This isn’t meant to be the only role of the City Attorney.  Rather the only political role of the City Attorney.  Ensuring no closed doors, no unreasonably restricted public commentary, no string of last-minute location changes for charter review committee meetings (cough), and when feasible, working to ensure a healthy adversarial relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.  The City Attorney ought not to have a direct role in determining the conception or the application of policy, but in certain respects the public most certainly should.

Part of protecting the “brand” of the city is ensuring a vital and functional government, and it just so happens to also serve the collective public interest (by keeping their government in front of their noses) and progressive interests (hamstringing attempts at runaway concentration of power).

Pick Your President Poll Tightens Up

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

We’ve got ourselves a heck of a horserace shaping up as the PickYourPresident poll continues.  In just 24 hours we’ve seen a lot of movement in the standings, with John Edwards cutting Obama’s California lead in half.  Elsewhere, Clinton bumped Edwards for 2nd in Ohio and the two are separated by a whisker in Michigan- further evidence of a Clinton surge over the weekend.

I’ve got big plans to head for Reno at the end of the week (Friday, also when the poll ends), and I’ve got no idea what to expect from the Nevada caucus.  Given that Nevada has never seen a caucus like this, it’s impossible to predict with certainty what will happen there.  But given how unpredictable the nomination process has already been on both sides, I can’t imagine it’ll be definitive.  I’m waiting right now for Michigan results to be finalized, but that won’t matter much on the Democratic side.  Momentum is a fickle beast, but Super Tuesday is the one time it could actually matter.  Polling throughout Feb 5 states have shown that races are tightening all over.  Who knows what could happen at this point, but if you have a candidate that you support, the more public your support, the better.

Edit: Also, of course, go to PickYourPresident.org before the voting closes on Friday to cast your vote.

National Rankings:

1. Sen. Barack Obama

2. Sen. John Edwards

3. Sen. Hillary Clinton

4. Rep. Dennis Kucinich

5. Gov. Bill Richardson *

6. Sen. Mike Gravel

And the California Rankings:

1. Sen. Barack Obama

2. Sen. John Edwards

3. Rep. Dennis Kucinich

4. Sen. Hillary Clinton

5. Gov. Bill Richardson *

6. Sen. Mike Gravel

*Richardson received votes before withdrawing from the race.

Challenging Denham? The Road to 2/3

The Dump Denham campaign came to life in the midst of last year’s budget wrangling, helped in no small part by Senator Don Perata.  Well Jeff Denham may or may not ultimately face recall, but he’ll be termed out in 2010 if he lasts that long, and it looks like Democrats have themselves a challenger ready.  It seems that Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani recently moved into Denham’s Senate district.

Galgiani, who succeeded the ever-popular Barbara Matthews in 2006, says she just wants to live closer to the center of her Assembly District, but it certainly is convenient that she also happens to enter SD-12.  Denham’s district is at or near the top of nearly every Dem-target list for the near future, especially as the 2/3 rule collides with the year’s budget crisis.

Just a hunch, but I’m guessing that budget flexibility is going to become a bigger issue over the course of the year, what with that whole budget shortfall thing.  And healthcare funding.  And Indian Gaming compacts.  Might just be that ambition is finding a place in all this.

San Bernardino Hates Clean Elections Too; Joins Bowen Suit

In May I noted that San Diego County Hates Clean Elections and mroe recently confirmed that nothing had changed and San Diego was suing Secretary of State Debra Bowen for forcing San Diego’s elections to be verifiable in the event of a margin of less than one half of one percent.  Turns out it isn’t just San Diego’s election officials who chafe at the notion of actually delivering an accurate vote tally.

San Bernardino has voted to sue Debra Bowen as well, complaining that, as officials specifically tasked with ensuring a fair, open and accurate vote, being forced to count those votes- occasionally- is outrageous.

“I don’t see how it improves anything other than creating more work,” said [San Bernardino] Supervisor Dennis Hansberger.

Except, of course, the fundamental integrity of democracy. But who’s counting?

Nick Leibham and Wrong Way Bilbray

Photos by Chris Rothwell – SEOwell.com

So last night I made my way up to Encinitas in the heart of CA-50 for the official launch of Nick Leibham's congressional campaign.  The event managed to fill the Bullpen Bar and Grill, and my best guess after huddling with several guests was that the number was at least 300.  One way or another, the group was bumping up against max capacity.  Among the assembled throng was CA-52 candidate Mike Lumpkin, San Diego City Council candidate Stephen Whitburn, San Diego Drinking Liberally chief Jesse Rubin, and Calitics’ CarlsbadDem.  And of course, Francine Busby to introduce Nick Leibham.

Against the backdrop of New Hampshire primary results running across screens throughout the bar, Leibham talked about the failures both big and small of Brian Bilbray‘s political career.  He pledged to actually live in the district, not in Imperial Beach, or in Virginia, or with his mother.  More seriously and most importantly though, he pledged to really represent the district.  Something that, as far as I and everyone else in the building are concerned, has been sorely lacking for a number of years.

He whipped up the crowd, hitting on many of the core issues that Democrats will rally around this year:  He blasted Bilbray for supporting Bush’s plan in Iraq, for supporting Bush’s destruction of the Constitution, for refusing to fund children’s health care through SCHIP.  He talked about the fundamental failure of the Republican party and the myriad ways in which Brian Bilbray has been complicit in that failure.  Most of all, he helped explain how those Republican failures hurt the 50th district.  And he led the crowd in chants of “Wrong Way Bilbray!” as he listed off just some of the seemingly countless ways Rep. Bilbray has failed to serve this district.

For me, the most exciting part of the evening was the size, diversity, and depth of the crowd.  I spoke with activists from all over the district and throughout San Diego.  We talked about Blackwater’s invasion of Potrero and other San Diego issues, but most of all, we talked about how desperate people are to get a government that better reflects their values.  And for so many of them, it starts in the 50th.  After watching the record Democratic turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire, the energy to seize on this election seems to be everywhere.

It is, of course, a tough district.  Francine Busby ran a spirited campaign last year with support from the DCCC and still ultimately came up short.  But as the Republican party has continued to fight against good policy at every turn and Brian Bilbray has revealed himself to be an extremist even within his own party, dynamics change.  These crowds and this energy really paints an encouraging picture as one more front is opened in the battle to reclaim this country.  Nick Leibham is the rallying point in the 50th, and it sure looks like he’s positioned to be the beneficiary of an incredible amount of support.  We’re in for a real race.

Crossposted to San Diego Politico

Iowa Results, California Bound

Iowa results are in.  By all accounts, it’ll be:

38% Obama

30% Edwards

29% Clinton

Other

34% Huckabee

25% Romney

14% Thompson

13% McCain

10% Paul

Other

So allowing for a possible 1% fluctuation somewhere, how does this impact the race and California’s role therein?  Thus far, California numbers have mirrored national polling almost exactly.  Anybody want to guess where the Iowa bounce takes us?

UPDATE: Most recent Field Poll (pdf) has California looking this way two weeks ago:

25% Guiliani

17% Huckabee

15% Romney

12% McCain

6% Thompson

Others

And Dems:

36% Clinton

22% Obama

13% Edwards

Others