( – promoted by SFBrianCL)
Steve Westly released a Spanish ad entitled Nuestro Futuro today. It is focused on education, but also explains how his wife is an immigrant.
My Spanish is rusty, but I got the drift. I really, really liked this ad. He seemed sincere over phony, which he occasionally comes off in English. If you look at this in combination with the PowerPAC poll, Westly is gunning for a big advantage in the Latino vote.
David Roth has some internal polling that has him ahead by 7 points over incumbent Mary “I’ve got you too babe” Bono.
According to an independent and confidential poll just taken for business clients of a well-known pollster, once voters in the sample were presented with my vs. Bono’s personal and professional characteristics, the results show that if the election were held today I would be 7 percentage points ahead! (Roth for Congress)
CA-45 seems like a prime pickup for the Dems in the House. Bono is flailing at this point. Also, check out this post on Mary Bono at Down With Tyranny. It seems poor Mary can’t afford to send her poor, destitute son to USC on a Representative’s Salary and still have a pimped-out fleet. Aww…poor Mary.
(Bumped up – promoted by SFBrianCL)
UPDATE: Bill Bradley is reporting that the Reps are now holding it up for budget considerations. Arnold must be freaking it out at this point. He needs this to run on. We’ll see whether Arnold can actually excercise a little bit of leadership over HIS OWN PARTY. I doubt it, but you never know. At this point, my money is on no deal.
UPDATE: 8:24 PM: I hear that the Reps have demanded (and recieved) an additional billion in levee funding. Well, I’m not too troubled by that.
UPDATE: 8:14 PM: It seems all over the place at this point. Bradley says says that we’ll be delayed long into the night. Another source has told me that some Republicans are having some hangups on transportation issues.
The bond deal is back again. A vote appears likely for tonight.
In a sign of an impending agreement, legislative leaders scheduled floor votes for tonight to put $35.3 billion in bonds on the November ballot to build roads, housing, levees and schools.
Legislative leaders worked into the evening Wednesday on the details of the package, but broke shortly after 10 p.m. without announcing an agreement.
***
State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, scheduled a vote for 5 p.m. today, while Núñez planned to call his chamber into session at 5:30 p.m.
(SacBee 5/4/06)
So, we’re getting close to the announcement. Arnold needs this. Arnold really, really needs this. What does he have to run on? What has he accomplished as governor? Worker’s Comp isn’t going to win a whole lot of elections in this state.
We’ll be waiting with baited breath for news of the votes. I’ll check back in when I hear anything.
Kevin Clymo, the unabomber’s defense attorney died today from complications of surgery.
Sacramento defense attorney Kevin Clymo, who defended the Unabomber and some of the region’s other most notorious criminals, died Wednesday evening following extensive back surgery, according to his brother.
Clymo, 58, had recently been appointed to defend a 20-year-old man accused of shooting to death a California Highway Patrol officer near Woodland in November. The trial had been scheduled for this summer.(SacBee 5/4/06)
I don’t think defense attorneys get enough credit for the work that they do. They fill a need in scoiety that few would dare to touch. They take cases for wages far below market. I’m not suggesting anybody cry for attorneys, but what I am suggesting is that we, as a nation, need to get more serious about the document that forms the basis for our whole government, the Constitution. California needs to ensure that the public defenders have the resources to provide adequate defenses for even the most heinous criminals. For without rule of law, we are no better than common thugs or terrorists. Are you listening Mr. President?
UPDATE: Thanks to Anxiocrat, here’s the link for the stream. I like to let these things settle in my mind a little. So, I’m taking my liberties as a blogger to revise the grades and provide some additional information.
The SacBee has a good recap of the debate:
The two top contenders for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination sharply challenged each other’s commitment to the environment and their records before and after taking office during the hourlong exchange hosted by the California League of Conservation Voters.
***
The two candidates agreed on relying more on alternative energy, developing more urban parks, making California a leader on the environment and fighting offshore oil drilling.Both won the Sierra Club’s endorsement and have long lists of environmental backers. Both have environmental accomplishments to which they can point – and about which they argued.
Angelides won a 2003 environmental leadership award from the organization that sponsored Wednesday’s debate. But he made his fortune as a developer before his 1998 election, a career that opened him to Westly’s attacks Wednesday night.
Westly cited Angelides’ River West Developments’ destruction of vernal pools and wetlands at a Folsom housing development nearly two decades ago.(SacBee 5/4/06)
My take (on the part I saw anyway. hey KABC: get with the Firefox bandwagon!):
Angelides: A-
He did a good job at explaining issues. He had to show that he was capable of maintaining his cool level head. He did just that. He was able to handle all the questions, seemingly knowing the back story too every issue.
He did a great job on rehabbing his developer career. He blew off the 40% of his campaign funds were from developers attack. That’s probably the best move. He doesn’t want to bring up the fact that Westly can’t self-finance and has tons more money in his campaign accounts, and certainly doesn’t want to discuss the developer issue.
Even after all of that, he didn’t fully address the Laguna West issues to the camera. Also, Angelides still looks like your boring uncle to me.
Westly: B-
He beat the $3.5billion drum to a bloody pulp. By the time Angelides corrected him, I was hoping somebody would say something so I didn’t have to hear that phrase again. Westly didn’t have as good of a grasp on the issues as Angelides did. he frequently brought up the Million Solar Homes Act whenever he needed something to say about energy. It was a little broken record-ish.
He was really on the warpath. For a guy who was trying to say that Angelides didn’t sign his pledge, he sure did bring up the negative stuff. I think we can officially call that “positive campaigning” phase of Westly’s campaign over. He went after Westly for development. He went after Westly for taking funds from developers. I really, really did not appreciate the constant barrage of Dem-on-Dem attacks. I’m hoping that both campaigns can clean up their acts in the next few weeks to focus their energies on the real task at hand: defeating Arnold.
Westly does have the telegenic aspect going for him. His tone and style were excellent. He looked very confident and was so good at staying on message. He took the old political skill of shifting questions to your own purposes to an artform. And he really challenged Angelides. If he wins the primary, that hard-nosed attitude that Garry South has imbued him with will be a valuable asset against Arnold.
Winner: Angelides
Both candidates had good performances. I think both looked capable of taking on Arnold. Both candidates received passing grades, but I think Angelides did a better job of explaining the issues and answering the questions at hand.
The Debate is live online tonight at KABC in LA. It’s not going to be aired live, so it’s probably the best way to watch it. As of right now, it doesn’t seem to be working, but hopefully we’ll have something soon. It appears that it’s not working in Firefox, but working in IE. Of course, you could probably do as most others and just trust the media on how they did. Here’s a list of the television times of the debates from Angelides.com:
Or watch in your area on these dates:
San Francisco:
KGO Ch. 7
May 3 at 7 pm (digital channel)
May 7 at 4 pmLos Angeles:
KABC Ch. 7 – May 6, 3:30 pmSacramento:
KTXL Ch. 40 – May 6, 12 noonFresno:
KFSN Ch. 30 – May 7th, 4 pmSan Diego:
KGTV Ch. 10, date of broadcast TBDBakersfield:
KERO Ch. 23, date of broadcast TBD
The debate is sponsored by the League of Conservation Voters and focuses, unsuprisingly, on environmental issues. Both candidates are endorsed by Sierra Club, but neither really came into contact with enviro-issues in their previous jobs. Angelides has his “green development history” in Sacramento, but I Westly’s environmental record is still a bit of a mystery. He’s certainly leaning towards environmental groups in speeches, but I think what the Sierra Club is endorsing in both of these candidates is an Arnold defeat.
Check out Bill Bradley’s preview. It’s got some good background.
Live blogging is on the flip.
Sorry I missed the first half hour.
7:28: Westly brings up his $3.5billion that he brought
7:29: Solar energy
Westly attacks Angelides for arguing for government take-over of electricity companies. Westly says that he has worked very hard for solar energy
Angelides says that he stood up for the public against the electical companies.
7:30 Coasts:
Angelides is against off-shore drilling.
Westly: More public access to the beaches. Once agian, he says $3.5billion he brought in. And then attacks Angelides for attacking him. Huh?
7:32 Toxics in environment, CA versus Feds
Westly: We need better laws than the Feds. Can fully fund CalEPA. Talks about $3.5billion AGAIN.
Angelides: Will fight against pre-emption. Tries to disagree about $3.5Billion
7:34: Ports and their pollution
Angelides: Ports need to handle trade for the state while not polluting. Supports NRDC’s suit to improve ecological conditions in LA. Shippers should pay for cleanup.
Westly: He says $3.5 billion is the right number. Convert to electrification. “He knows how to make it happen”
7:36: Global warming
Westly: California must lead. He created Global warming. Supported Solar Energy Homes bill. Points out Angelides job as a developer.
Angelides: He is proud of his career. Supported legislation to green state’s cars.
7:38: Contaminated runoff bringing contaminants into water.
Angelides: We need strong urban runoff standards. We should help localities do this. Better development standards when building. Says he fought Arnold when loosening standards
Westly: He stood up to governor too. We need tougher standards too clamp down on developers. Giver Air Resource Boards more support to clean air.
*Break* Candidates will question each other next…hmmm.
Westly to Angelides: Are you really proud of your developer record? Paved over watershed, Sierra Club sued him.
Angelides: He is proud of his business record. Livable, walkable, sustainable community. Helped close down nuclear power plant. Got awards for environmental issues.
Angelides to Westly: After governor became less green, Westly called him pro-environment. Why did he gloss over differences with Arnold.
Westly: I stood up to Arnold. I sent check even though Arnold signed executive order. Ahnold took hard right turn. I can win. Tax increases are bad. I know
Laguna West was a catastrophic failure. EPA said Angelides paved over wetlands. Is it really democratic to take 40% funds from developers.
7:47 Nuclear power
Westly: It is too costly. We should subsidize alternative. Never support nuclear until we can safely dispose of the waste.
Angelides: No on nuclear, yes to alternatives. Led green wave. Says Steve has lots of oil companies in his personal portfolio.
7:49 Environmental laws inhibit housing
Westly: We need more housing, but we need smart grwoth. Stop sprawl.
He says all of his assets are in a blind trust. What are the developers buying with the 40%
Angelides: All investments are open records.
He supports smart growth.
7:51: Diesel Exhaust
A: Pensions invest in alternative. Require filling stations of alternative fuels. CA should be leader
W: They agree! 5 top polluted cities are in CA. More at ports. Convert diesel to electric at ports.
7:53: Lower gas prices by more refineries
A: Need a path away from fuels. I will stand up to Bush on this area. He says Westly was conserving his energy not the environment, rather than fighting Arnold
W: “If only your environmental record was as good as your sense of humor” I ahve a track record
Closing statements:
A: Who has truly led? I stood up for the environment. I set up smart growth 7 years ago. Westly did that last month. Westly followed me in my environmental leadership. CA has big enviro challenges. CA needs a governor who is ready to lead.
W: Election is about who is prepared to lead on the environment> I worked in Carter administration for the environment. Angelides built collosal failures. Toughest rules against pollution. Angelides is a developer. We led on catalytic converters, we can do that again. I will lead on the environment.
Straight (pun intended) from the SacBee’s wires, SB 1437 has come out of the committee today:
Written by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and sponsored by Equality California, SB 1437 attempts to create bias-free curriculum and school activities by adding sexual orientation to the state Education Code’s list of protected categories.(SacBee 5/3/06)
I’ve written several posts about 1437. One reacts to Dan Walters and the other is an extended memorandum about the bill (in PDF). I probably don’t need to go into any more detail about my opinions on the matter, but I always enjoy mocking Randy Thomason and point out what an utter failure he is:
Kuehl said her bill seeks to acknowledge the contributions of people in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in future school textbooks as a way to foster acceptance.
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the bill would require textbooks to portray those lifestyles in a positive context and interferes with parental instruction.
Dozens of people, particularly from Sacramento’s Russian community, lined up to speak in opposition of the bill.
The Senate Education Committee voted 8-3 along party lines. The bill will now go before the full Senate for a vote.
So, Randy fails yet again to deliver his hate-filled agenda. Just so you know, the bill requires textbooks only to go so far as to include contributions of the LGBT community. It essentially just adds the LGBT community to a list of minorities. Toleration is a value we all should embrace, but Randy prefers to hate. Time is passing the hatemongerers by, and California is on the front edge. Congrats to Sen. Kuehl.
I was going to write a piece about PowerPAC’s poll focusing on Latino voters in the Governor’s race. However, Frank beat me too it and explains it very well. So, I’ll just point you there by excerpting a few choice portions:
Taken April 6 to April 20, 2006, PowerPAC’s poll shows the two Democratic candidates for Governor in a dead heat, 25% to 25% in the primary with 48% undecided. Among Latinos, Westly has more support than Angelides, 30% to 20%.
***
While both Angelides (46% versus 36% for Schwarzenegger) and Westly (45% versus 37% for Schwarzenegger) have a real lead over Schwarzenegger among all registered voters, that lead tightens considerably once actual voter participation history is considered.(CalPropReport 5/3/06)
I will give you a little caveat: the poll breaks down small samples, so the MoE’s are quite big. Just keep it in mind…
The Franchise Tax Board raked in a lot more dough ($11.3 Billion) than we expected, actually exceeding the 2001 Bubble amount ($10.5 Billion).
The state is collecting record-breaking tax revenues this year, outstripping even the most optimistic fiscal forecasts and setting the stage for a debate among lawmakers over what to do with the bounty as they craft next year’s budget.
The Franchise Tax Board said it took in $11.3 billion in personal income tax payments this April, an amount larger than the $10.5 billion the state received in April 2001 at the height of the high-tech stock market boom.
***
No single factor – the stock market, real-estate deals, or business growth – seems to explain it, Williams said (SacBee 5/2/06)
And already the fighting has begun over what to do with this new found cash. The problem is that most of the money is going to end up in cost over-runs in a few sectors: prisons (ahem…end 3 strikes), welfare (a lawsuit that could cost the state $500 million is pending), and state employee raises. The Republicans want to start saving a little in a slush fund while the dems want to reverse some of Schwarzenegger’s cuts from his January budget proposal. It’s going to be one hell of a fight.
Over the weekend, the CA-11 delegates at the convention endorsed Jerry McNerney over Steve Fillson:
It wasn’t only Angelides that walked out of the convention with a coveted endorsement.
So did Jerry McNerney, one of three Democrats running for the nomination in the high-profile Congressional District 11 race against incumbent Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.
McNerney scored 21 of the 28 votes cast by party delegates, an indisputable victory that produced a wide smile on the face of this serious Ph.D. engineer from Pleasanton.
It was a minor step for the Democratic Party but a giant leap for McNerney, a candidate whom national party leaders have spurned as unlikely to triumph over Pombo. McNerney, a wind energy consultant, is too liberal to win critical votes in the conservative San Joaquin County, they say, and besides, he already lost to Pombo in 2004. (CC Times 5/1/06)
I’ve written some about this, as have many others. But, as you may know, Filson has the support of many, many Congressmen, especially Tauscher. McNerney does not. In fact the most recognizable names on McNerney’s endoresment list is Liz Figueroa, who is running her own quixotic campaign for Lt. Governor, and Johan Klehs, who is in a dogfight of a race for SD-10. McNerney has become, almost out of necessity, a man of the grassroots. Whether this is right or wrong is an entirely different question. Over at Down with Tyranny, Howie has a particularly scathing (and mighty insightful) post about this particular subject:
You see, Emanuel’s DCCC has taken the extraordinary step of anointing a weak, former Republican, Steve Filson, who has nothing much to say beyond “Pombo is bad,” in the midst of a spirited Democratic primary that features an exemplary grassroots, progressive candidate, massively favored by Democrats throughout the San Joaquin Valley (CA-11), Jerry McNerney.
Emanuel and his henchmen– like Steny Hoyer and the agendaless, desperate-to-be-the-first-woman-Speaker-please-let-me-Rahm-I’ll-do-anything Nancy Pelosi– have been trying to make Filson’s candidacy seem inevitable. But, unlike in many districts where their tactics have worked, Democrats in the 11th CD are too independent and feisty for them and have only pushed back harder against the anti-grassroots, anti-progressive, Inside-the-Beltway Democratic power elite. Filson’s pathetic candidacy, despite all the big name Beltway-ites behind him, just has not taken off. McNerney just keeps getting stronger and stronger. (DownWithTyranny! 4/30/2006)
Ultimately the relevant question is when should the national party intervene in local Congressional races?
More on the flip…
Ok, so I should disclose that my prefernce for CA-11 would be a longtime legislator for the Stockton area who has a history at winning tightly-contested races in the area. However, that isn’t going to happen, at least this time around.
Now that I have that out of the way, I would like to focus on the reasons that this race is getting nasty. If you look at the DCCC’s website archive, you get an idea of how Filson’s troubles with the grassroots began in a quote from kid oakland on the site:
Hi, kid oakland here.I’ve got a couple questions. Is this an endorsement of Steve Filson by the DCCC? At what point would those of us who have supported Jerry McNerney get to have a say?
I’d also like to know what Steve Filson’s statement of being a “social moderate” means.
And the “social moderate” stuff that k/o talks about? Well, here’s a sampling:
There is quite a bit of dissatisfaction with voters on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, Filson said. What we need is a centrist candidate to appeal to folks in the middle. (Tri-Valley Herald 9/30/05)
Oh, really, that’s what we need? Somebody to triangulate the views of others into one completely contradictory bullshit set of ideological nothingness? Yeah, we’ve seen how well radical moderatism has played. It’s really brought us all three branches of government into a place where we want them. We’ll really win people over with how much like the Republicans we are.
So, without discussion from grassroots, Tauscher hand selects a candidate. And, strangely enough, Pelosi follows by appearating at events and giving him $2000. They endorse him and send him out on the road with pockets full of Washington cash to challenge Pombo.
But, wait, McNerney, the 2004 Dem nominee is still running. But, the DCCC thinks that he’s already had his shot. Yeah? Really? Did anybody throw fancy soirees for McNerney with the Democrat leader? Was 2004 really a fair fight between Pombo and McNerney? What 2004 showed the grassroots was that McNerney fought for a cause, when most others were ignoring it. And the grassroots has shown loyalty to McNerney.
The endorsement of the CDP is just one more black eye for the DCCC. CA-11 is a challenging, but not an unwinnable, race. The district has changed enough in the last 10 years that a challenge to Pombo is possible. The DCCC needs to better utilize people on the ground in the districts. Ask them who they want. In districts like this, the grassroots support is imperative in the general. GOTV efforts will be completely unsuccessful if the candidate has challenged and demoralized the base.
I’m not as harsh of a critic of the DCCC as others are. I think it serves a vital role in winning races. Ok, occasionally they will have to farm for candidates. But when there are popular candidates already there, they need to work with them first before they start shopping for other inexperienced candidates.