All posts by Todd Beeton

The Unveiling of Arnold v. 4.0…or is it 5.0?

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

As Brian notes below, Meet The Press on Sunday featured an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why is he worthy of such a prominent Sunday morning slot? In a nutshell, Russert asked the now trite question:

In this year of a Democratic wave, why was Schwarzenegger immune?

The show opened with the dramatic statistic that just one year ago, Arnold’s approval was at 32% and his disapproval was at 58%. He then followed that up with the fact that on Nov. 7 of this year, Arnold was re-elected with 56% of the vote to Angelides’s 39%. A dramatic reversal to be sure.

But while on paper it does appear quite dramatic, those of us who’ve been here watching the turnaround as it happened know that it was actually quite a gradual process that arose from several factors, not the least of which were that Schwarzenegger apologized for pushing through his unpopular reforms last year and he swiftly moved to the left and ran on a progressive platform. This more than anything else explains why the Democratic wave didn’t sink Schwarzenegger: he was indistinguishable from a Democrat.

More over the flip.

Ironically, this strategy of fleeing the national Republican brand was enabled by Bush/Cheney’04 wunderkinds Matt Dowd and Steve Schmidt who ran Schwarzenegger’s re-election campaign. They exhibited a keen sense of the mood of the nation in 2004 and had just such a sense of the mood of Californians this year. They made sure that any attempt to tie Arnold to national Republicans was a futile one.

Which brings me back to Meet The Press and why Arnold’s story is even worth telling. Russert began the interview by quoting a Wall St. Journal article that put it this way:

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 17-point victory alone commands attention since it is easily the most impressive score by any Republican in a Democratic-leaning state this year – and it suggests a future for pro-environment, pro-business, fiscally conservative and socially moderate politics.

In other words, for pragmatic Republicans, Arnold’s victory should serve as a blueprint for how the party can win in blue states post-2006, which was precisely the jumping off point of our conference call on November 9; more specifically, our concern was and is what Arnold’s win could mean for Republican chances here in California in 2008 at a presidential level.

The next line of the Wall St. Journal article points to one of the reasons pollster Joel Wright cited in the conference call for why we should be concerned about the fate of California’s 55 electoral votes:

The key to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s victory lay not in seducing the left, but through his mastery of the state’s rising independent center.

Yes, it’s that dreaded ‘ascendant middle’ meme that the media has decreed is the takeaway story of the 2006 elections, a meme that while terribly simplified, is, sadly, not all wrong. You know and I know that our progressive values won big on November 7, but it’s also true that this was not a base election. Nationally, turnout was huge; by all accounts, both bases showed up. The difference was that the independent swing voters went overwhelmingly for Democrats this year. However, in California they went for Schwarzenegger.

The real problem this poses for California Democrats is that this independent middle is growing at the expense of registered Democrats.

From Wright:

Voter registration stats indicate a subtle but clearly operative movement of voters away from parties and toward non-alignment/Independent status. Example: Dem registration has declined by 2 percent since 2002. Rep registration has remained unchanged. While there is a larger pool of registered voters, up 2 percent, partisan registration has declined.

Californians are fleeing both parties and Schwarzenegger knows it. Having just won, Schwarzenegger used the Meet The Press interview to paint himself as poster boy of the independent middle. Listen to these talking points:

It doesn’t really matter what party you come from I think the people appreciate it and they know you’re working together and you provide the kind of leadership to bring both of the parties together and do the kind of things that need to be done for the state.

And guess what Arnold’s recipe for electoral success nationwide entails:

If there’s any lesson there, nationwide we need to look at it much more like what is it that the people need rather than what is good for our party.

I suppose we should take it as a good sign that even in re-election afterglow, Arnold is not claiming some Republican mandate. On the contrary, he signals no intention of swinging back to the right any time soon. Hell, when asked what an “Arnold Republican” is, he even used the ‘p’ word:

It’s basically being fiscally conservative, being socially moderate and being environmentally progressive.

By now, we know Arnold well enough to know that this is just the latest governor Arnold iteration. And it’s fine for now; certainly preferable to the 2005 edition. But no matter how progressive he claims to be or actually is, this is still a construct borne from the minds that brought us Bush/Cheney ’04. There’s no doubt in my mind that Arnold Schwarzenegger is being used as a re-branding tool (sounds painful doesn’t it?) of the national Republican party. Next thing you know, he’ll be on the 2008 ticket as VP candidate, potentially moderating a more rightwing presidential candidate and putting California in play.

You thought last year’s model was bad? This new ‘independent middle’ Arnold could be the most dangerous one of all.

I Shouted Down Jon Fleischman Last Night…

…and man did it feel good.

Last night, USC convened two panels to have a sort of election post-mortem, first from a California perspective and then from a national one.

For the purpose of this diary, I’m going to address the national affairs panel because that was the one during which I smacked down one of the rightwing panelists…twice.

And this was no ordinary rightwingnut; it was Flash Report‘s Jon Fleischman.

More over the flip.

Fleischman and Steve Schmidt, who ran Schwarzenegger’s campaign (formerly of Bush-Cheney re-election fame), represented the Republicans on the panel. The Democrats were Democratic communications “specialist” Roger Salazar and Al Gore’s former Director of Political Affairs Karen Skelton. More on them later.

First, Fleischman. This guy was a piece of work, a classic conservative sell-out who’s still carrying Bush’s water. The topic was “what does Bush do now” and Fleischman said the following, no joke (I paraphrase):

I think Bush has already begun doing what he needs to do, which is to work closely with the Democrats in a conciliatory way.

I almost choked, I couldn’t believe those words came out of his mouth without any irony. Was he kidding? My blood started to boil. Certainly someone on the panel would call him out on this ridiculous statement.

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

Wait for it…

[crickets chirp]

Sigh. But I’m not the sort of guy to raise my voice when not called on. Hell, I’m no Mike Stark. The panelists were speaking and I was a lowly audience member. But then he said it again and this time, it was simply beyond my control. I shouted:

Is pushing John Bolton through conciliatory!?

All eyes were on me. They didn’t quite understand what I’d said, so I repeated myself more clearly and loudly, now that I was actually in control of the words this time. And Fleischman looked directly at me and replied something to the effect of:

The John Bolton situation is more an issue of loyalty for President Bush…blah blah blah.

So, in other words, no, it’s not conciliatory at all, is it Jon? Thank you.

The moderator looked in my direction:

Can you please save questions til the end.

I nodded and raised my hand acknowledging the request, figuring, certainly I wouldn’t have to raise my voice AGAIN out of turn.

Well, I was wrong.

As the panel went on, I noticed Fleischman repeatedly called the ‘Democratic Party’ the ‘Democrat Party.’ And again no one called him on it. I could feel the steam building inside me. Umm, anyone, is anyone going to react…

Then I heard a disturbance from the audience to my right. A guy I couldn’t see was mumbling something about how “Democrat Party” was offensive. He then got shushed by the moderator, so again I yelled out:

Could he please get the name of the party correct!?

Then my friend on the other side of the auditorium joined me:

It’s Democratic Party!

Fleischman never used the term again.

Now, what I did certainly wasn’t revolutionary and it may not even qualify as a smackdown truly, although for me it was new territory; I didn’t know I had an inner Mike Stark.

But the real issue was this:

WHY DID I EVEN HAVE TO SPEAK UP? WHERE WERE THE DEMOCRATS ON THE PANEL TO CALL THIS GUY OUT?

Nowhere. They were nowehere.

Roger Salazar, one of the two supposed Democrats on the panel, posted his recap of on CA Majority Report, to which I posted a reply calling him and Karen Skelton out for letting these right wingers run roughshod over reality.

But honestly, I wish that was the worst thing Salazar and Skelton were guilty of. No, they were also quite adept at perpetuating a couple of media myths about last week’s election:

1. The absence of a national Democratic message to frame the election means that the result was more a function of  Republicans losing the election rather than the Democrats not winning. The Democrats were just in the right place at the right time.

2. Howard Dean was a big loser on Tuesday and Rahm Emanuel was a big winner.

This time, it was the Democrats I had to call out but I waited my turn. I waited until the moderator took questions from the audience. This time I raised my hand like a good little boy. They took 10-12 questions and the moderator never looked in my direction once.

The price for having spoken out of turn.

Well, as it happens, I didn’t have a question anyway. I had a comment. And since I didn’t get to share it last night, I’ll share it with all of you.

I am really tired of hearing people say Democrats didn’t really win on Tuesday, that Republicans merely lost. Oh really? We won majorities in the Senate, House, governorships and state legislatures. Not one incumbent Democrat anywhere in the country was ousted. And all this without a unifying message from the national party.

Yes, of course Republicans lost, they lost big, but largely thanks to Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, Democrats all over the country, even in the reddest of red districts, won. We challenged in more districts than ever before and fielded phenomenal candidates and because we did that and because there were actual boots on the ground in these districts, we could support those candidates so that they had the resources to make the case to voters that they were a credible alternative to the Republican incumbent and a credible agent of change. Howard Dean belongs right up there on your winners list.

Something like that. I’m still working on it, you get the idea.

I really wanted to tell it to their faces last night, of course, but there was something satisfying about having been banned from speaking.

So as you can see, it was a pathetic display but it was also such a perfect encapsulation of what is wrong with these beltway strategists. I mean, in the end, I started liking the Republicans more. At least they had some audacity. You wanna know who Steve Schmidt named as one of the winners of Tuesday night? Ken Mehlman. HA! On his watch, Republicans lost majorities of absolutely everything and he’s a winner? The way Schmidt put it, without Mehlman, the losses would have been much worse.

Now that guy is a Republican, promoting his own kind in defiance of all evidence to the contrary. There’s something admirable about that.

As I said to Roger Salazar in my comment to his post about the panel:

If you ever wonder why bloggers and the grassroots have problems with establishment Democratic consultants and strategists, think back to last night for your answer. I saw three Republicans on that stage last night; I didn’t see one Democrat.

Are you guys registered over at CA Majority Report yet? We need to use the comments there to pick fights and keep them honest.

Join me in the comments over at Salazar’s post HERE.

Join Courage Campaign, Rep. Hilda Solis & MyDD’s Chris Bowers For Post-Mortem Conference Call

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Congratulations to everyone for all you did leading up to yesterday’s phenomenal result. What we accomplished really was extraordinary and we should all be really proud of the effort we put in. As we all know, however, this is only the beginning of a long hard fight, both nationally and here in California. That’s why The Courage Campaign would like to get the ball rolling with a discussion of the impact of the California election results both on the future of California politics and on the national scene heading into the future.

What does a Schwarzenegger win mean for the fate of California’s 55 electoral votes? Are they in play? And what do the voter trends we saw yesterday tell us about how to keep California progressive?

We’d love you all to join us and special guests Congresswoman Hilda Solis of CA-32, Chris Bowers of MyDD, pollster Joel Wright of Wright Consulting and Frank Russo of the California Progress Report for a lively discussion. It will be held tomorrow, Thursday, 11/9, from 4:30-5:30pm PST. To join, just RSVP to [email protected] to receive the dial-in details. Space is limited. Participants will be welcome to ask questions, as time allows. Please invite anyone you think would be interested to join as well.  Thanks!

Field Poll Has Bowen Up By 6

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

Debra Bowen enjoys a 6 point lead over appointed secretary of state Bruce McPherson in the latest Field Poll, which was taken from 10/23-10/30.

Debra Bowen (D) 40%

Bruce McPherson (R) 34%

Undecided 26%

She's expanded her support from 38% back in July, a trend that may be slight but it's there and it's in her favor.

"It's not moving against her. The trend is more important than the number," DiCamillo said. "To me, that is significant."

Another good sign for Bowen can be found in the internals of the poll.

The support of the two candidates is sharply divided along party lines. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans support their parties' candidate, with 67 percent of Democrats for Bowen and 69 percent of Republicans for McPherson. Thirty-seven percent of nonpartisan voters support Bowen, while 20 percent favor McPherson. "The nonpartisans are breaking for Bowen, and that's what is giving her the lead," DiCamillo said.

With such a huge number of undecideds, just as in the initiative races, the result of this race will largely depend on which way undecideds swing. So the fact that the nonpartisans are supporting Bowen is huge.

More of the poll over the flip. 

The tightest race of the year is turning out to be for Lieutenant Governor.

John Garamendi (D) 44%

Tom McClintock (R) 43%

Undecided 13%

John Garamendi now holds a statistically insignificant 1 point lead over conservative Tom McClintock. McClintock's strength should come as no surprise to anyone who remembers him from the recall election. He has strong support within the party, which is reflected in the internals:

Garamendi is drawing support from 73 percent of Democrats, while McClintock has 81 percent of Republicans voting for him. Among nonpartisans, 47 percent favor Garamendi and 32 percent support McClintock.

Again, nonpartisans are breaking in the Democrat's direction, which should put Garamendi over the top in the end. The fact is he is well to the right of California.

Other races:

Attorney General

Jerry Brown (D) 56%

Chuck Poochigian (R) 31%

Undecided 13%

Brown's support is up 11 points from July.

Treasurer

Bill Lockyer (D) 45%

Claude Parrish (R) 26%

Undecided 29%

Controller

John Chiang (D) 38%

Tony Strickland (R) 31%

Undecided 31%

Insurance Commissioner

Cruz Bustamante (D) 37%

Steve Poizner (R) 46%

Undecided 17%

Cruz is supported by only 59% of Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

New Internet Poll Shows Mixed Results

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Saladay has the results of a Polimetrix internet poll conducted for the Hoover Institution. Overall, Democrats are looking good downballot including Garamendi up by 6, Brown up by 21 and Bowen up by 7. At the top of the ticket, however, things are looking pretty static with Schwarzenegger up by 10.

As for the initiatives, if these numbers are to be believed (again, it's an internet poll so take with a grain of salt), the results give us some mixed news. While 85 would be defeated and 86 & 87 would be within a hair’s breadth of passing, check out those horrendous Prop 89 and 90 numbers.

See the extended…

Prop. 85, parental notification: 42% yes, 51% no

Prop. 86, cigarette tax: 49% yes, 47% no

Prop. 87, oil tax: 49% yes, 44% no

Prop. 88, parcel tax: 31% yes, 60% no

Prop. 89, campaign finance: 35% yes, 52% no

Prop. 90, eminent domain: 58% yes, 28% no

As for who was selected to participate in the poll:

"Participating in the survey were 877 likely voters belonging to the PollingPoint Internet panel. Panelists were selected to match a random sample drawn from the California voter list by age, gender, race, party registration and residence. The margin of error for the survey estimates is approximately plus or minus 3.5%."

John Kerry’s Brouhaha and Its Implications For Angelides

(Cross-posted at The California Courage Campaign)

Yesterday in Pasadena, when stumping for Phil Angelides, John Kerry made the following comment about education:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

You look at the front page of FoxNews.com, it's the top story, whereas on any other online news outlet, it's nowhere to be found. And all day on Fox News today they've been replaying the video of Kerry making the statement, in which he goes on to rave about Phil Angelides and California's two senators. I haven't seen Angelides's name get this much play since his campaign began.

Today, Tony Snow and the administration hit back, calling Kerry's comments "an absolute insult" to the troops.

"The clear implication here is, if you flunk out, if you don't study hard, if you don't do your homework, if you don't make an effort to be smart, and you don't do well you, quote, 'Get stuck in Iraq,'" Snow said.

See Kerry's remarkable response to this over the flip.

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

Oh hell yes. More:

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Tony Snow and now John McCain are calling for an apology from Senator Kerry. Instead of an apology, Kerry just made the following statement in a press conference:

Let me make it crystal clear. I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy. If anyone owes the troops in the field an aplogy, it is the president and his failed team.

He went on to call his statement yesterday "a botched joke about the president…not about the troops"; that he meant that he was ripping on those that took us into Iraq, not those fighting there. Kerry is clearly purging the demons of 2004. 

I'm not going to give them one ounce of daylight for their distortions. I learned that hard and deep lesson two years ago.

Not surprisingly, Fox News is trying to make this, as Carl Cameron put it, "a moment" such as Senator Wellstone's funeral, during which Democrats' behavior may have contributed to Walter Mondale's loss in his attempt to replace Wellstone. They will do their best to make sure this story has legs since, as Britt Hume said in post news conference analysis, "this clearly helps Republicans." But even the Fox News anchor seemed impressed with Kerry's tough stance and his refusal to apologize.

Over at CNN, there was a different take altogether. The anchor put conservative Bay Buchanan on the defensive:

So you're saying the president did his homework when he took us into Iraq?

The first thing out of Buchanan's mouth:

No…

I couldn't believe it. They were adopting Kerry's frame of his statement, literally calling into question whether Bush was adequately educated about Iraq before he took us in. That is the frame that needs to emerge from this story. That, and the toughness of John Kerry.

The big question though is whether Phil Angelides will implicate himself into the fray, getting more play and having Kerry's tough talk rub off on him. Phil's biggest goal this final stretch as I see it is not to win new voters, but to make sure Democrats show up for him on Tuesday. That is what John Kerry's antics yesterday and today can do for Phil if he plays it right.

CA-46: Dana Rohrabacher Caught On Tape Insulting Military Families

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I know, I know, Dana Rohrabacher insulting military families is hardly news. I mean, back in September he was a veritible model of compassion when confronted by members of Military Families Speak Out – Orange County outside of his house in Huntington Beach:

“I am going to get all of you arrested if you don’t leave right now.”

“My son is in Iraq!” responded Tim Kahlor, 48, whose son is on his second tour of duty in Iraq until January 2007.

“Did he volunteer?” Rohrabacher yelled back.

On other occasions, Rohrabacher has called the concerned families of our fighting men and women “unpatriotic, ” “traitors” and accused them of “lowering troop morale.”

Yesterday, outside Rohrabacher’s debate with Jim Brandt, The California Courage Campaign and Military Families Speak Out gathered a group of 100 or so protestors to present Rohrabacher with a petition calling for him to apologize for disrespecting MFSO on several occasions. You’ll be shocked to learn he didn’t take the petition, however, he did open his big fat mouth again. This time, though, we caught it on tape.

Video over the flip.

The video below shows Rick Jacobs of Courage Campaign and several members of MFSO demanding an apology from Congressman Rohrabacher and attempting to present him with the petition. He just passes them by on his way into the school where the debate was being held.

But Rohrabacher being Rohrabacher couldn’t leave it alone and snapped back at Tim Kahlor as he told of his son’s finding a dead Iraqi family in their home after a US bombing and demanded an apology for dismissing his concerns over his son’s safety with “he volunteered, didn’t he?”

Rohrabacher told Kahlor:

You’re the one calling your son a war criminal.

You can then hear Tim Kahlor passionately rebut this offensive retort.

My son is not a war criminal! You just called my son a war criminal! My son is not a war criminal!

A father’s anguish incarnate.

Watch it here:

Rohrabacher’s contempt for the families of the men and women he so willingly puts in harm’s way is offensive and tragically typical of the chickenhawks that led us into this war and still support it.

At the debate yesterday, he made no attempt to distance himself from his support of the war, continuously conflating it and the war on terror.
In fact, he got some unintentional laughs with these gems:

“Radical Islam hates our way of life.”

“It’s our job to take out those people who hate America.”

“The best thing we can do is take terrorists out overseas so that they can’t attack us here.”

“mistakes are made in every conflict.”

Congressman Dana “Warbacker” Rohrabacher” needs to go.

Jim Brandt for Congress.

Support Military Families Speak Out.

Watch Our New Ad, “The Future of California” [UPDATE]

(It’s a cute little ad, with a very important message. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

The Courage Campaign‘s new ad, The Future of California, will be running on TV in certain California markets starting Tuesday but you can watch it on YouTube now:

The spot is a humorous play on the 2004 ad that accused liberals of being Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, chardonnay-sipping…you know the rest. Here, we have the Californians who matter most (kids) tell us what they think of George Bush's special interest agenda taking root in California.

Please view it, rate it up, and spread it around. In addition, in order to keep it on the air, we’re looking to raise an additional $20,000. Any donations to the cause are greatly appreciated.

The ad follows up on our Stop Bush in CA campaign in which we frame 5 of November's ballot initiatives in terms that can really get Californians worked up — their relation to the Bush agenda. Yes, Bush is indeed on the ballot in California this November, especially in the form of two ballot initiatives on which we urge votes of No: Prop 85 & 90.

More on these dangerous propositions over the flip…

[UPDATE]Our ad got linked over at CA Observer and Political Muscle. Let’s try to really get this thing out there! Thanks!

From our Stop Bush in CA page:

Proposition 85

If approved, Proposition 85 would require notification given to parents of a pregnant girl under the age of 18 when she seeks an abortion. Then, a 48-hour waiting period is mandated. 

The issue of parental notification has a long history in California. To chip away at a woman's right to choose, abortion opponents use the idea that good parents should know about their children having an abortion. From this, they work to legislate good parenting. 

Of course, good parents should be involved in a decision like this, but in reality, this law forces even girls who are scared of abuse to inform their parents of their pregnancy. Unfortunately, some children come from families where they just can't talk to their parents. Girls faced with the choice of an illegal, unsafe abortion or facing their abusive parents will often delay crucial medical care or perhaps even consider suicide. The real goal here isn't good parenting but rather a rollback of women's rights. 

This is why nurses, doctors, and teachers all oppose Prop 85. 

The potential for parental notification laws to endanger the lives of children, and the inability of government to impose good parenting means that you should vote NO on 85.

Proposition 90:

Municipalities have basic zoning and land-use laws on the books to protect our communities. Restrictions on big box retailers, adult book stores or huge subdivisions, for example, are intended to maintain a community's integrity. 

What Prop 90 does is allow virtually anyone – including wealthy land speculators and developers – to sue our communities if any subsequent ordinances put on the books might cause them "economic harm."  For instance, if a developer wants to build 1000 homes but your city limits growth due to traffic to 250 homes, Prop 90 allows the developer to sue your city to recover his lost potential "profits" from the 750 other homes.  If the city can't pay then the land use law will be waived. And cities can't pay these frivolous claims if they want to pay for necessities like police, firefighters, parks and roads. 

But 90 isn't just limited to development. According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, "these laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation and consumer financial protection."

Help us send a message this November that George Bush's regressive right wing agenda is not welcome in California. View our ad, The Future of California, and spread the word that a vote against 85 & 90 is a vote against George W. Bush. 

Voting SNAFUS Abound On Bruce McPherson’s Watch

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Umm, McPherson knows he's in charge of ELECTIONS, right? Because we're less than 3 weeks to election day and things are already going to hell in a handbasket.

First, last week Debra Bowen alerted us that McPherson had sent out absentee ballots that were so big that they require more than 39 cents postage without informing recipients of the need for extra postage. This SNAFU led to a funny exchange in the Secretary of State debate yesterday when McPherson, put on the defensive by Debra Bowen with the accusation that he was "left scrambling to strike deals with the post office" to make sure all absentee ballots arrived, McPherson fired back:

I don't make deals with the post master or anyone to do my job.

Yikes, defensive much?

To make matters worse, we're now hearing of a rising number of defective absentee ballots in the Sacramento area, 85 separate instances in 17 voting zones as of Tuesday afternoon. Here's the deal:

Absentee voters should receive two different double-sided paper ballots — one listing candidates for local and state races, and the other state and local ballot measures. 

But voters from a wide range of voting zones — from Natomas to Elk Grove — are reporting errors in their mailings. In some cases, voters received only one ballot card; in others, voters got two of the same card. 

In additions, voters are being asked to check their absentee ballots to ensure they match their sample ballots, which were mailed earlier. 

If they don't match, they could miss voting in school board, water board, park and recreation and fire district races, for example.

As for who's to blame, two local vendors who handled printing, sorting and distribution of the ballots,  Admail West and Eagle Press are playing the blame game. If McPherson had any leadership qualities, he'd take responsibility and fix the problem. As it is, there's the distinct possibility that people may send in two duplicate ballots, in other words, they would have voted twice. Who trusts anyone in this process to weed those out? yet at the same time, this "double vote" shouldn't invalidate their vote entirely.

Meanwhile in Yolo County, it was only as a result of the vigilance of county clerk recorder (and e-voting skeptic) Freddie Oakley that the electronic voting machines for vision-impaired voters will be functional on election day. 

two weeks ago, when officials began programming the machines, the directions for use by voters with vision disabilities came out in Vietnamese.

Yep, the Austin-based software company Hart had provided them with the wrong audio instructions, which is what allows the vision-impaired to vote "privately and independently" as McPherson was so fond of boasting in yesterday's debate. Well, this SNAFU happened on his watch, no champion of voting rights he. If not for the paranoia of Oakley, vision-impaired voters in Yolo would have been disenfranchised on November 7. Certainly it was no thanks to McPherson who has thrust the state headlong into e-voting without seeming to be prepared for the myriad potential problems that go along with that.

"We will never go to complete paperless voting in Yolo County as long as I'm clerk," Oakley said.

Make no mistake, all these problems lay squarely on Bruce McPherson’s shoulders yet I doubt he will take any responsibility for any othese problems. This election is about competence and taking responsibility, neither of which characterizes Bruce McPherson. Lucky for us, competence and responsibility are exactly what we will get in Debra Bowen.

Secretary of State Debate Liveblog

(check out the live blogging here or at Courage campaign – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

You can view the debate live HERE starting at 2pm. And please join the conversation in the comments.

[UPDATE]Bowen clearly won. She was passionate, knowledgeable, attractive and managed to put the sitting Secretary of State on the defensive. Do you get the sense that McPherson hasn’t had to fight for re-election much in his career, because he did a crappy job of it today. Winner by knock-out: Bowen.

Spread the word!

Also, h/t to Juls for reminding us to vote for Debra over at Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot PAC

Technically, this debate is a live SF Chronicle editorial board meeting. Looks like they'll endorse based on this meeting. There's a controversy over this debate…they only invited the two major party candidates, not the additional 4 candidates that will be on the ballot. Good call, Chron.

The SOS and incumbent: Bruce McPherson

Democratic challenger: Democrat Debra Bowen.

Cue the opening remarks. 

McPherson:

He is boasting about cleaning up the office of Secretary of State up. He implemented the toughest voting system in the country. He visited all the counties and met with the registrars personally. And he reached out to voters. He established a fax ballot for overseas military. He restored the nonpartisanship of the office. Right.

He's talking about his endorsements now, including the Long Beach Telegram.

"My opponent is running for SOS for 2 reasons: Florida and Ohio." You sure you want to remind people of that, Bruce?

Bowen:

Opening up processes is very much what I'm about. I am running because of the crisis of confidence in our voting systems. Decided to run 2 years ago when problems in the office became clear to her. When McPherson was appointed, "I put partisanship aside and my own ambitions aside, so I voted to confirm Bruce McPherson."

I think California voters have not been well-served by Bruce McPherson." She's now talking about the state-wide voter registration database that he agreed to with the Bush administration. 43% of LA County voters would not have been allowed on the voting rolls. Also certified Diebold TSX voting machines despite security flaws.

Open up the process, far too many secrets regarding the voting systems and counting the votes. 

 

She's talking about the secrecy of the systems. And the disingenuousness of Bruce McPherson when he says that he has the toughest standards in the nation.

Oh yeah, props, "any of these keys can open a Diebold voting machine." 

The only way to reassure people is to open up this whole process. 

We out to go to open source code, open this all up. This problem would have been discovered long ago if there had been a public review."

McPherson is rebutting and is repeating his claim that he has instituted the strictest standards.

Ahh, he's addressing the Princeton report. He says the model that was tested in that report is the TS system and he certified the TSX. 

"We also have a paper trail requirement…in large part because of me…to have CA be the first state to have a paper trail requirement."  

 

McPherson: "I've overseen two successful elections and nobody's been disenfranchised in any election."

Bowen: "the security measures are always as good as the least effective person who implements them."

Damn, nice.

She's now talking about the sleepovers in San Diego County. "They could have been left unattended in cars, in a garage, anyware." And she pulled out the key again. Brilliant.

After the sleepovers, "the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing."

The minutiae of the voting machine issues are hard to follow but Bowen is coming across as the authority and McPherson seems like her apprentice.

 

She was asked if there is any electronic system that would be acceptable. She mentioned on that allows the voter to vote and prints a paper ballot which becomes the ballot of record.

"This is California, I have no doubt we can do even better than that…with open source software and that allows disabled voters to vote independently. We can do this, we just have to decide to do this."

McPherson used the "c" word, said Bowen is throwing out "conspiracies." Thing is she doesn't come off as a conspiracy theorist, she's totally credible.

 

He just said "I think she doesn't trust the county registrars, I do." OK, Bruce.
—–

OK, got a little heated there. Bruce is on the defensive. Bowen is on the offensive.

—-

Q: How do we deal with the increasing number of absentee ballots?

Absentee ballots are a big part of the election protection concerns on the right. They think CA absentee rules are too liberal.

He thinks the added check of the signature itself will add to the security of absentee ballots.

Bowen: "I introduced a measure in 1993 for people to become permanent absentee voters. It became law in 2000-2001. We can make that process better too." 

"This year, one barrier, there is more than a 39 cent postage in many counties. Leaving the SOS scrambling after the fact with the post office to ensure people's votes will be delivered. I'm still concerned about that."

Re the signature match, some counties are experimenting with automating the signature match, even using Diebold machines.

McPherson jumped in: "I don't make deals with the post master general or anyone else."

Defenisve much?

——– 

Q: If absentee ballots work so well, why don't we get rid of e-voting all together and go to paper like in Oregon.

Bowen: problem – in urban areas, people move a great deal. I have favored a system that allows people to register as permanent absentee but still allow them to go to the polls. I love to go to the polls. You feel like you're more a part of democracy.

McPherson: "I want 100% participation.  As interesting as all mail ballot seems, the fact is that the larger population still goes to the polls and they should be able to do that. "

He's saying that we should offer people all options for voting.

——-

Q: Secretary, you say you support the ID law yet there's little evidence of fraud.

McPherson: "Not necessarily a photo ID but standards in assn w/HAVA — people could provide a variety of number of types of ID. I don't think it's too much to ask for the integrity of elections to present ID at the polls."

Q: Is there evidence that there has been evidence of fraud.

McPherson: "We have seen some, you hear about it every election. One person put his dog on the voting roll."

Bowen: "We actually do have a requirement that when people register they do have to present ID. I'm opposed to photo ID requirement at the polls. Have had to chase a birth certificate with her foster daughter — it took us a year and a half to get it, it's a good thing we didn't need it for her to vote." 

"Every court that's looked at voter ID laws have found them unconstitutional." 

—–

Bowen: "Only 15 cases of voter fraud throughout the entire country were charged. If every citizen has a valid photo ID, I'd support it, but that's not the case."

 

Q: What can the SOS office do to promote participation?

McPherson: 6 million eligible voters who are not registered to vote. He's been all over the state to encourage people to register including a student voter program. "In particular, young people are a concern to me."

"Fundamental core of democracy is on election day when we get to choose our representatives."

He's talking about problems that have occured and litigation involved. "I will prosecute those cases to the fullest extent."

Bowen: 1. SOS makes a deal of voter reg projects in ethnic communities but fact is that 43% of voters who registered in LA County during a few months of this year were predominantly women or ethnic voters w/Asian-American or Latino surnames. 

2. "I go back to this key" (yeah prop!) "and the Diebold machines. People are tech savvy and they are skeptical. We have to fix this problem of confidence. Young people approach me about open source software."

3. "How we fund campaigns. The amount of money going into the legislature and constitutional officers keeps people home. In states with clean money participation has gone way up."

Nice plug for Prop 89! 

—–

 

 

McPherson: "This thing about the 26,000 voters who couldn't vote have been mentioned twice and that's two too many." Was that supposed to be some catchy sound byte, Bruce?

He's defending the LA County disenfranchisement plan.

Bowen:  "Plenty of ways to prevent duplicate registrations that doesn't disenfranchise anyone." There were 26,000 did not get a sample ballot so they weren't told where their polling place was. I can see why it is that only 263 of those 26,000 voters cast provisional votes.

——-

Bowen to McPherson: Do you personally believe that there are any serious problems with counting and auditing of any of the electronic systems you certified?

McPherson: "The proof is in the elections that I have overseen. We can trust the systems I put in place."

"Votes have been counted accurately and systems have performed well."

No matter how many ways you say it doesn't make it anymore true, Bruce.

He is now talking about disabled voters: they can only vote with electronic machines.

Bowen: There is a system called Vote Pad that your office did not certify does allow disabled voters to cast a ballot without an electronic voting machine."

And then "I DID NOT HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION." Aww yeah. "I don't know whether you believe the Princeton study and other tests are things are not serious."

—–

McPherson to Bowen: You'd decertify electronic voting machines that allow disabled and blind to vote independently. 

 

Bowen: "You are scaring people in a way that is really shameful. For you to assert that if I were to win…when I do win…that I would disenfranchise voters is really shameful. Bruce, you and I have been friends for a long time, this is not your finest hour."

Wow.

——

Closing statements.

McPherson: My opponent has said she is running for the nation. I am running for California. He is now quoting the alarmist SacBee editorial that called her aggressive. He's just reading stuff now. Calling her an armchair quarterback. He said she's never offered a playbook of her own. Is he kidding?

He's literally just reading off editorials of other papers.

Bowen: Yes the editorial said "Support Debra Bowen, she'll secure your vote." 

"What we see now is hastily certified unsecure systems, record low voter turnout (only 33% cast votes in primary.)..I've been an innovator, I'll work to expand the safe at home program (protects battered women, he opposed it), I have the technical expertise and know how to restore confidence and openness to our voting systems and I respectfully request your endorsement."