All posts by Todd Beeton

California

Paul Krugman Likes Us, He Really Likes Us

2 Comments

(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign)

Sunday night we all watched the man who should be president take the world stage to spread the message of his now Academy Award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth: there are measures that each of us can take to slow global warming and it is our duty to do so.

In his column Colorless Green Ideas (behind firewall,) NY Times columnist Paul Krugman uses his own platform to do the same and in so doing provides some historical context that demonstrates how California can serve as a model for the nation on tackling global warming.

He begins by paraphrasing Gore's oft-heard refrain:

The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Krugman can barely hide his contempt for those that still deny the climate crisis. And he takes little solace from the fact that fewer and fewer of them seem to deny the phenomenon's existence outright preferring instead to resist the notion that humans can ever hope to have any effect and to insist that such an effort would come at too high a cost. 

More over the flip…

As Krugman summarizes for us, their argument goes as follows:

any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible…[because] any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live.

Well, Krugman calls BS on this claim by citing an example of an economy that has

managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

What magical land could Krugman possibly be referring to? Why, California, of course.

It all started during the energy crisis of the 70s during which the nation as a whole engaged in a concerted conservation effort. At that point, California's energy consumption was about on par with the rest of the country, but it wasn't long before California and the nation took different paths. As success nationwide bred complacency:

improvements in auto mileage came to an end, while electricity consumption continued to rise rapidly, driven by the growing size of houses, the increasing use of air-conditioning and the proliferation of appliances.

But California continued to pursue conservation policy, which has led us to:

Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and is responsible for emitting only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

And California's recipe for success:

In some cases conservation was mandated directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given new incentives to promote conservation, via rule changes that “decoupled” their profits from the amount of electricity they sold.

What's notable for Krugman about what California has done right on energy since the 70s is how sort of invisible the policies are. He calls them "drab," "colorless" and "wonky,", which, of course, is the point. These measures that California has pursued have NOT required a change in the day to day lifestyle of Californians, yet they have significantly cut energy consumption and carbon emissions throughout the state…well, cut them significantly as compared to the rest of the country anyway, which, as Krugman reminds us, isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. 

He provides a reality check, lest our California heads get too big:

Even if America as a whole had matched California’s conservation efforts, we’d still be emitting about as much carbon dioxide now as we were in 1990. That’s too much.

But it's an optimistic story Krugman is telling, one in which California serves as a shining example for naysayers who insist that any significant policy to halt global warming will alter our lifestyles too much to be politically viable.

California’s experience shows that serious conservation is a lot less disruptive, imposes much less of a burden, than the skeptics would have it. And the fact that a state government, with far more limited powers than those at Washington’s disposal, has been able to achieve so much is a good omen for our ability to do a lot to limit climate change, if and when we find the political will.

And luckily, as Al Gore likes to say:

political will is a renewable resource.

I think it’s up for renewal in 2008, what do you think?

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Schwarzenegger On Face The Nation

1 Comment

Arnold was on Face The Nation this morning, live in the studio in Washington, which I guess means that he won’t be presenting Best Picture at the Oscars tonight. Shucks!

He’s in D.C. to address the National Governors Conference tomorrow, to discuss, in his own words:

how important it is to work together. Which doesn’t mean you have to sell out your principles or change or give up anything, that you ultimately want to serve the people rather than the party.

Yes it’s more of his patented “post-partisan” politics that we’ve come to expect from him, nothing new there. And he took the opportunity to reiterate, no fewer than three times, that his 2005 ballot initiatives were “good ideas,” it was his approach that was wrong.

Again, we’ve heard this before. What was most interesting to me about the interview was what he said about Iraq.

Join me…

Predictably, Arnold, when asked about how Congress is dealing with the war in Iraq, said the following:

Both Congress and the White House should sit down and start working this out rather than just attacking each other and not solving the problem.  I mean what good is the nonbinding resolutions and all this stuff and creating all this bitterness?

OK, so he’s couching the war in Iraq in terms of his “can’t we all get along” talking point. No shock there, I suppose, it’s his schtick, why shouldn’t it apply to the war as well? But he then reverts to a classic Republican talking point, belying his claim to be above it all:

The Congress…can cut off funding for the war if they really want to stop the war…they should cut the funding or let the president do what he needs to do because to micromanage a war is the worst thing, it is the ingredient for a loss.

In other words: Democrats are the party of defeat.

Yeah, post-partisan my ass.

But again, we all knew his post-partisan rhetoric was hollow. So where’s the news? Well, for me, it came in his following statement:

I believe very strongly that we should do everything that we can to be victorious and to create the kind of democracy that we envision for Iraq but that we should let the Iraqis know that we are here up until this time and then we’re going to draw back, we’re going to draw our troops out of Iraq. I think a timeline is absolutely important because I think that the people in America don’t want to see another Korean War or another Vietnam War where it’s an open-ended thing. There should be a timeline.

In his capacity as the ambassador of moderation, here he is essentially drawing a line in the sand defining support for a timetable for withdrawal as the moderate stance on the war, no longer the purview of the “anti-war” left. But even more notably he is drawing a clear distinction between himself and the “moderate” Republican candidates for president.

There was a lot of talk after Arnold won re-election so decisively that it could signal that California may be in play for Republicans in 08. Not only would Arnold provide a model of how a Republican can win in the state but also his endorsement and advocacy on behalf of either a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani could really make them viable. Hell, even top level Republican strategists have let it be known that they consider California winnable next year because of Arnold.

Well, maybe not so much.

What is Arnold’s call for a timetable if not a rebuke of McCain and Giuliani’s more-of-the-same Iraq strategies? McCain has been the staunchest opponent of a timeline, advancing the theory that the enemy would just go into hiding and wait us out until we left; that it would tip our hand, etc. Can you picture Arnold having any real positive impact on the campaigns of either of these guys here considering how strongly they differ on the number one issue of our day? The message he was sending today, mere days after appearing with McCain in what might as well have been an endorsement, was clear:

I’ll appear with you and I’ll even campaign for you if you win the nomination but your position on Iraq is inconsisent with California and inconsistent with me and on that issue, you’re on your own.

Good to see he really means it, on this issue at least, when he says he wants to put people before party. Of course, considering how little credibility his party has, especially in California, it’s not exactly a profile in political courage. But it’s reassuring all the same.

Uncategorized

California Transportation Commission Screws Los Angeles

18 Comments

(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign)

Last week the California Transportation Commission made its preliminary recommendations on how to spend the first portion (about $2.8 billion) of the $19.9 billion in bond funding approved by voters last November. You may have heard by now that L.A. got seriously shortchanged. While we have 28% of the state’s population, the CTC is recommending we receive just 12% of this $2.8 billion; most egregious of all: a long planned expansion of the 405 freeway is left off the CTC’s list of recommendations.

While by any measure it seems an absurdity to underfund anti-gridlock projects in Los Angeles of all places, perhaps it was inevitable. A closer look at the CTC website reveals that not one commissioner is actually from Los Angeles (the closest is Larry Zarian from Glendale.) San Francisco? Check. Oakland? Check. San Diego? Check. Even West Covina, Riverside, and Riverton. But not one commissioner actually experiences Los Angeles traffic on a daily basis.

So, whose bright idea was this?

The California Transportation Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor.

Thanks a lot, Arnold.

The good news is the board won't make its final decision on funding until next Wednesday, so Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Speaker Fabian Nunez spent yesterday in Sacramento lobbying the commission to include the widening of the 405 among its first round of funded projects (amounting to an additional $730 million in funding.) To aid in their efforts, The Courage Campaign has launched a petition drive to give Los Angelenos the opportunity to let the CTC know just how important ending gridlock in Los Angeles is to us. Please join our effort in sending a message to the CTC today.

More on how the rest of the state fares over the flip…

As even the San Francisco Chronicle notes:

It seems the CTC staff steered an overly generous share of the funding to improving the "connectivity" of rural road systems. We empathize with the overall shortage of state and federal funding that has left rural projects waiting for many years, but the fact is that Proposition 1B was written and sold to voters as a remedy for "highly congested travel corridors in California."

The OC Register has a rundown of how some SoCal counties are faring in the CTC's recommendations:

  • Los Angeles: to receive $327.9 million; $1.78 billion requested.
  • Riverside: gets $112.4 million; $814.3 million requested.
  • San Bernardino: $153.4 million; $681.3 million requested.
  • San Diego: to receive $304.2 million; $1.73 billion requested.

Some local reaction:

The LA Times:

ANYONE WHO HAS ever sat in traffic in Los Angeles — and that's just about everyone who has ever visited Los Angeles — knows how crowded our freeways are. Yet state officials have inexplicably decided not to do as much as they can as soon as they can to make the region's roads less congested.

It's bad enough that the commission's staff axed projects such as carpool lanes on the 10 Freeway, one of the nation's busiest. Worse was its decision to dump a widening of the 405 that the Legislature put on the fast track last year. Fast-tracking allowed the plan to add a carpool lane on the northbound 405 between the 10 and 101 to proceed as a "design-build" project, meaning construction could start before a design was completed.

The SF Chron:

The San Francisco Bay Area is also getting shortchanged in the first wave of funding recommendations issued by the California Transportation Commission's staff.

Under the staff's recommendations, Bay Area projects would receive less than half of the Northern California bond allotment, even though the region accounts for about 85 percent of the north's congestion. Many vital projects in this region — from carpool lanes on I-580 to the Marin-Sonoma Narrows on Highway 101 — were left off the list.

S.D. Union Tribune:

San Diego County would be a chief victim; the plan would divert $261 million from Interstates 5, 15 and 805 to little-used roads in rural counties such as Highway 101 in Mendocino. Los Angeles is another commuter hell that would lose millions under the proposal.

One of the problems seems to stem from the fact that the commission is awarding just $2.8 billion this year and delaying an additional $1.7 billion to next year, even though they're authorized to disburse the full $4.5 billion this year. The reason for the delay would be an excellent question for the CTC board. Send them your questions and comments at our petition today.

Keep up to date on the subject over at Steve Lopez's excellent Bottleneck Blog

Uncategorized

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez Co-Authors ‘Death With Dignity’ Legislation

2 Comments

(Cross-posted from the The Courage Campaign)

In February 2005, Assemblywoman Patty Berg (D-Eureka) first introduced AB651, the California Compassionate Choices Act, which was modeled after Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, the Death With Dignity Act. Despite support from a majority of Californians for right to die legislation, the bill didn't even reach the governor's desk thanks to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Senator Joe Dunn who, well, ended its life in committee last year.

Here is what Frank Russo wrote at the time.

Senator Dunn stated that when he gaveled up the committee, he had not decided whether to support or oppose the bill. With the overflow audience sitting on the edge of their seats, he described it as a “very difficult issue.” He stated he “wanted to speak from the heart, for a moment or two, with no notes.” For twenty minutes, he brought up arguments, both pro and con and then stated “I think the inquiry needs to go deeper.” At the end, he announced he was voting against it “with a heavy heart” because of bioethical concerns that were not answered.

In a related story, from the LA Times:

Dunn is now executive director of the California Medical Assn., which represents 35,000 doctors. Association officials oppose the legislation, saying that it contradicts a doctor's ethical duties.

Well, as with many bills that don't succeed their first time around, this year, thanks to a newly supportive Fabian Nunez, the California Compassionate Choices Act may have a second chance at life…

Calling himself a "Johnny-come-lately" to the issue, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez announced Thursday that he will back a bill to allow terminally ill people to hasten their deaths with lethal prescriptions.

The new bill, AB 374, can be read in full HERE. Co-author Lloyd Levine summed it up in the Democratic weekly radio address:

Our bill acknowledges the right of a terminally ill adult of sound mind with less than six months to live to ask for and receive life-ending medication. The bill has multiple layers of safeguards, even more than Oregon’s law, to ensure that only those whose lives are already at an end may exercise this right.

Patty Berg posted a piece on California Progress Report on Friday explaining the importance of such legislation and why she is reintroducing it:

Californians want to be able to discuss ALL their options with their physician if they are terminally ill. They need to know about hospice care, and about pain management. They want to be able to have these conversations in a way that respects their fundamental right to privacy – a civil right.

That is the core of the Compassionate Choices Act. It is about the freedom of the individual to make choices – and the freedom for your choices to be different from my choices.

Berg is optimistic about its chances this time around.

The Compassionate Choices Act…has a better chance of passage than ever before. We have more supporters and more co-authors, and we now have the determined partnership of our newest joint author, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez.

For Nunez's part, his biggest obstacle to supporting such legislation in the past has been his Catholic faith. This year, however:

Nuñez said he is "ready to buck my church," despite an entreaty from Cardinal Roger M. Mahony. The Catholic Church, which is against suicide, helped defeat the previous "death with dignity" legislation.

Salladay has an interesting (read: disturbing) collection of reactions to this news from religious groups HERE.

So, what made Nunez change his mind?

He said Berg and her fellow author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), persuaded him that the proposal, modeled on a 9-year-old Oregon law, is not about suicide but about "how people are going to live the last days of their lives."

"They're going to die," Nuñez said of those who would qualify for the lethal drugs. "The question is how much pain and suffering is involved and how much of that person's dignity is taken away from him or her."

And after all, as The Mercury News points out in an editorial in support of the legislation,

In Oregon, which passed its right-to-die law in 1997, people say it's a comfort to know that they can die peacefully and on their own terms. But fewer than 25 each year have taken advantage of that right. It hasn't encouraged euthanasia nor made the state a haven for those wishing to commit suicide.

I'm glad to see Speaker Nunez lending his considerable weight to this legislation this year. While I've been fortunate enough not to have to deal with the issue first hand, the right to die with dignity, to determine the quality of our lives and how we live our final days, just strikes me as so fundamental; as Assemblywoman Berg says, it is about that basic progressive value freedom of choice. I'm happy to see it is being championed here in California.

Uncategorized

Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32) On Escalation (w/video)

(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign)

On Friday, the US House of Representatives debated Bush's Iraq escalation plan before voting 246-182 in favor of a non-binding resolution opposing escalation. During that debate, many members of Congress made impressive, impassioned speeches. I'd like to spotlight one here, that of Congresswoman Hilda Solis of CA's 32nd district (h/t dKos).

In her statement, Solis reminds us of the local toll this war has taken:

In the district that I represent, the 32nd in California, we've lost 13 sons to combat…This includes Lance Cpl Francisco Martinez from the city of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley who bravely served our country despite not being a US citizen…While latinos make up 12% of the US population, they make up 17% of the servicemen and women in combat in Iraq and 11% of those have already been killed.

More excerpts and video of Congresswoman Solis’s speech over the flip. Also, see Speaker Pelosi’s YouTube channel for much much more…

Rep. Solis also goes on to demonstrate what supporting the troops really means:

We need a policy and a plan to put the welfare of our servicemen and women first so they can come home, rejoin their families and receive the care they deserve. Including culturally competent care, mental healthcare for veterans, housing and education.

She ends by stating that she will support the troops by opposing escalation:

I support our troops and the war on terror. Unfortunately the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. I'll continue to support and protect our sons and daughters who are serving as these young men have served us so well. I will do so by voting for this resolution and supporting their redeployment.

Thank you, Congresswoman for valiantly representing so many of us here in California, not just those in your district. Your words and passion do us all proud.

Watch the whole speech below:

Uncategorized

BREAKING: House Passes Non-Binding Resolution Opposing Escalation

15 Comments

Today the US House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq escalation plan by a vote of 246-182.

House Concurrent Resolution 63 reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Roll call vote is HERE.

Just 2 Democrats voted against it (Jim Marshall – GA and Gene Taylor – MS) and 17 Republicans voted for the resolution, not one of whom was from California. TPM has the count. Sure it’s non-binding, sure it’s symbolic but the fact is, when given the chance to take a stand, every single California Republican in the House voted to support Bush’s war escalation. Let’s make sure voters don’t forget it.

Uncategorized

L.A. City Council Passes Resolution Supporting February 5 Primary

3 Comments

On the same day that the state senate, by a vote of 31-5, approved moving the 2008 California primary for both parties to February 5, the L.A. City Council got in on the act.

Inspired by the momentum it’s garnered among legislators and by the advocacy of supporters such as Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs, yesterday, the council unanimously passed a resolution pledging  support for the legislation.

As Eric Garcetti said in his comments in favor of the measure:

“California is treated as an ATM by most presidential nominees, who come here for fundraisers but spend little time working on the various issues that affect our state. It is a credit to the work of the Courage Campaign that California will have a say in choosing the next President of the United States.”

More…

The language of the resolution echoes the Pro- arguments we’re now all familiar with…

WHEREAS, by moving the California primary to February, presidential candidates will be made to engage directly with the voters of the largest and most diverse state in the nation instead of merely with donors to large fund raising events;

WHEREAS, by moving the California primary to February, 2008, a time when the early primaries and caucuses will take place in Iowa, New
Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the voters in California could very well decide who is nominated, instead of merely voting for a
nominee already selected by the early primary / caucus states; and

WHEREAS, a February primary will also encourage potential nominees to learn about issues that are important to California and most of the nation such as immigration, agriculture, education, technology, climate change, defense, port and airport security, the cost of housing, crumbling infrastructure, and access for all to healthcare, instead of the issues that face a few small voting groups in a few small states.

This third reason is key and was central to the argument Rick made during his debate with Paul Hogarth on KALW on Monday. While I understand the arguments against moving up the primary, in the current situation, i.e. no sane regional primary system, this is California’s best bet for not only potentially having a say in who becomes the nominee, but also in forcing the candidates to address the issues that are of importance to Californians.

So while the L.A. City Council resolution may largely be symbolic, it points to the absurdity that, as Rick Jacobs reminds us, two states whose combined population is less than that of Los Angeles get to determine who ultimately end up being the presidential nominees. It’s about time the diverse population of Los Angeles, indeed that of California, had our issues on the forefront of candidates’ stump speeches for a change. Hopefully, this move will accomplish just that.

Uncategorized

BREAKING: Brent Wilkes and Dusty Foggo Indicted

10 Comments

The federal grand jury that U.S. prosecutor Carol Lam promised would be complete before her forced retirement took effect on Thursday has indeed filed charges today:

A federal grand jury returned 11 counts against Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, executive director of the CIA until he resigned in May, and his close friend, San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

This, you’ll recall, is further fall-out from the Randy “Duke” Cunninham case, which Lam prosecuted. If convicted, they can each go to jail for up to 20 years.

More of the sordid history over the flip…

So, how exactly do these guys relate to Cunningham?

According to Cunningham’s plea agreement, Wilkes’ companies won nearly $100 million in federal contracts over the last decade in exchange for funneling more than $626,000 in bribes to the congressman between 2000 and 2004.

And…

In the fall of 2003, Foggo allegedly arranged for one of Wilkes’ companies to be a middleman in selling bottled water to the CIA. In December of that year, Wilkes introduced Foggo at a party at Wilkes’ Poway, Calif., headquarters as a future executive.

Wilkes paid $32,000 for Foggo to join him on a vacation to Hawaii in December 2003 and January 2004, the indictment charges.

Foggo and Wilkes, both 52, allegedly made illegal money transfers of $815,000 in government contract funds from a Virginia shell company to Wilkes’ companies.

Howie at Down With Tyranny adds further contexxt:

Just before noon the A.P. reported that Foggo, Bush’s eyes and ears (and grabby hands) inside the CIA– he was a political operative and hack– was charged with fraud, conspiracy and money laundering in conjunction with the ongoing and expanding “Duke” Cunningham case. Wilkes, who had received as much as $100 million in illicit Bush Regime contracts, many through the connivance of Foggo and Cunningham, was charged with conspiring to bribe Cunningham. A third crooked Republican, John Michael, nephew of convicted GOP bigwig Thomas Kontogiannis, was also charged. The Kontogiannis connection is particularly dangerous to the Bush Regime since Cunningham had brokered a presidential pardon for him (a pardon Kontogiannis claims he paid $400,000 for). Only Bush can grant a presidential pardon and no one has dared to ask him to return the $400,000.

A few members of the CA congressional delegation are surely not happy with this development, as dday points out in his original post on the subject:

Wilkes’ tentacles reach far beyond just former Republican Congressmen who are currently in jail.

Rep. Jerry Lewis the former head of the House Appropriations Committee, has a close relationship with a lobbyist named Bill Lowery, having authorized ” hundreds of millions of dollars in federal projects for clients” of his.  One of the people Lowery was in the employ of was Brent Wilkes.  Lewis and Lowery have exchanged staff members on occasion; it can be said that their offices are not materially different in their goals.

Rep. John Doolittle admitted to the Washington Post that he “helped steer defense funding, totaling $37 million, to a California company, whose officials and lobbyists helped raise at least $85,000 for Doolittle and his leadership political action committee from 2002 to 2005.”

That California company was owned by Brent Wilkes.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, longshot candidate for President and former head of the House Armed Services Committee, is also tied up with Wilkes, having received hundreds of thousands in campaign funds from him and his companies in exchange for useless boondoggles of government contracts.

Hang on, everyone. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

Uncategorized

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) Blames Dinosaurs For Global Warming

3 Comments

Last week the House Committee on Science & Technology held its first hearing on Section One of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This is the same report, you’ll recall, that concludes, as Chairman Gordon put it succinctly the other day:

“We know with 100 percent certainty that global warming is occurring and with 90 percent certainity that humans are causing it. Case closed.”

In other words, as Al Gore likes to say:

“The debate is over.”

Well, turns out some members of Congress would beg to differ…87% of Congressional Republicans to be exact. One of those global warming deniers is our very own wingnut, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46), who distinguished himself at the hearing by one-upping Bill Frist’s Terry Schiavo diagnosis feat by concluding, without the benefit of video evidence mind you, that the global warming of 55 million years ago may have been due to…wait for it…”dinosaur flatulence.”

Watch the video HERE…you know you want to (big h/t to Think Progress)

To me, the most striking thing about Rohrabacher’s comment is his deadpan delivery, the complete lack of anything even resembling irony in his voice or face. I mean, a chartiable observer might conclude that he was trying to equate the absurdity of the dinosaur flatulence theory with the absurdity, as he sees it, of blaming humans for the current global warming trend. Instead, he comes off as though he really thinks dinosaurs farting contributed to an extended period of global warming. Of course, the truly depressing thing about the comment is the utter contempt with which these Republicans who deny the climate crisis treat science.

Well, thank God the grownups are in charge now. Nancy Pelosi spoke at the hearing as well and had some choice words for the global warming deniers whose majority status until recently essentially guaranteed that the entire Congress denied global warming:

For twelve years, the leadership in the House of Representatives stifled all discussion and debate of global warming. That long rejection of reality is over, to the relief of Members on both sides of the aisle.

How’s that for a frame: the Republican rejection of reality. And Congressman Rohrabacher is the poster boy.

Uncategorized

OC Register Chats With Art Torres

2 Comments

Dena Bunis at The OC Register spoke with CDP chair Art Torres in DC during the DNC winter meeting and shared a few nuggets.

The most notable, although perhaps not terribly surprising, revelation, is that Rep. Gary Miller (CA-42) is on the CDP’s hit list in 2008 (h/t CMR.)

I asked Torres if he thought the party had any chance to get Sanchez any Democratic company in the Orange County congressional delegation.

The chairman does have one possibility.

He mentioned the recent FBI probe of Rep. Gary Miller’s land deals, and said that depending on the outcome, it could make the Diamond Bar Republican vulnerable in the 42nd District.

We already knew this race is on the DCCC’s radar. Good to know they’re on the same page.

And who does Torres cite as his dream challenger to Miller? Joe Dunn.

More on what Torres had to say over the flip…

On the importance of the latino vote:

Torres said the main problem is registration; he said Latinos who are registered vote as often as non-Latinos. The trouble is, so many Hispanics are not registered and so many of the new Latinos living in California are not yet citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.

But voter registration is on the top of his list, he says.

On moving up the primary:

He believes moving the presidential primary to Feb. 3 will sail through the state Legislature and that it will make the presidential hopefuls pay more attention to the Golden State.

Torres pointed out that about $182 million in contributions went out of the state in the last presidential election and not a penny of it came back to be spent there.

On recent scandalous events:

In a nutshell he said Newsom apologized and we should move on and that he’d like to get Sanchez and Baca in a room together and make them iron out their differences.