An interesting irony:

Three weeks after Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three federal felonies, Rep. John Doolittle hired an attorney for legal advice concerning his own association with the disgraced lobbyist.

According to a report filed by Doolittle’s re-election campaign with the Federal Election Commission over the weekend, the campaign on Jan. 27 retained for $10,000 the services of the Virginia law firm of Williams Mullen.

Doolittle’s chief of staff, Richard Robinson, said the attorney handling Doolittle’s inquiry is David G. Barger. Barger is the former president of the Virginia Bar Association’s criminal law section and a former assistant U.S. attorney who later was an associate of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration.(SacBee 4/18/06)

Doolittle is going down.  Pure and simple.  He is #1 on Coburn’s list.

A bill which would bar doctors from participating in executions cleared the Assembly Business and Professions Committee yesterday.

The powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Association, has sponsored legislation, AB 1954 by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, that would prohibit the state from using licensed physicians in an execution.

The bill cleared the Assembly Business and Professions Committee with a bare majority, but only after an initial critic reluctantly voted for the measure just before the panel adjourned.

The measure still must pass the Appropriations Committee to reach the Assembly floor. The bill has not yet been heard in the state Senate. (San Diego U-T 4/18/06)

Is this really what we need the legislature to be doing?  Seriously, isn’t there something better.  Listen, I am personally against the death penalty.  I would hope that we as a society have evolved past that.  But, even if we haven’t, does the Legislature really need to start telling doctors what to do.  I’ll let Joe Canciamilla make the case:

But Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, pointedly asked Hertzka why it was necessary to enact a state law to protect doctors from something they cannot be forced to do anyhow.

“You are asking the state Legislature to tell doctors that they are now prohibited as a matter of state law, from participating in a particular activity,” Canciamilla said.

“Once you open that door . . . where do you individually draw the line because I can see a lot of other people marching in here suggesting that (other) activities be prohibited.”

Canciamilla offered abortion as an example. Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, warned that a simmering debate over the legalization of assisted suicide also could become entangled in the precedent that would be set.

And the best the Doctors’ Association can come up with is that it’s not medical?

But, he argued, “once you think about it, there is nothing medical about an execution.”

The Morales case has “thrust physicians in the middle of this, and we’re proactively saying we don’t want to be a part of it,” Hertzka explained.

Yes, it’s not medical.  But, there are already ways to avoid having to do this.  The state should not be telling doctors how to practice.  The precedent this sets is terrible.  Do we really want to start regulating this?  How do we argue against abortion regulation?  It just is not a place to put any “political capital” as a progressive. 

{UPDATE: Added SUSA information.}

Rasmussen Reports has their monthly poll on the California governor’s race out:

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in California shows Schwarzenegger leading State Treasurer Phil Angelides (D) by double digits, 49% to 36%. The candidates had been neck-and-neck in our previous polls.

The Governor leads State Comptroller Steve Westly (D) 48% to 40%. Schwarzenegger and Westly were essentially even in March. In February, Schwarzenegger led Westly 39% to 34%.(Rasmussen 4/17/06)

The pollsters at Rasmussen seem a little surprised by their own data:

It remains to be seen whether the Governor’s lead in this poll represents a lasting change in the dynamic of the race or is just a temporary phenomenon.
***
This is the first Rasmussen Reports election poll of the season in California where the incumbent has come even close to the 50% level of support. Typically, incumbents who poll below 50% are considered vulnerable.

Since March, both Angelides and Westly have lost a bit of ground among fellow Democrats. This may be the result of an increasingly heated Primary competition.

Rasmussen doesn’t do a poll for the primary itself, so we don’t have any additional news on that.  However, the general dem candidate vs. Schwarzenegger is losing 40-44% as a three month average.  Rasmussen has a pretty good history in the last few years, but the Field Poll is still the gold standard.  Plus, Rasmussen is a Republican, so maybe a grain of salt there too.

However, all is not well in Ahnold land.  The SUSA approval tracking #s are out, and they have him at a nifty 35% approval rating.  Not exactly the big rise there.  So, I’m even more likely to attribute Schwarzenegger’s gains to Rasmussen as an outlier. 

Right now the Dems are dealing blows to each other.  Once name recognition increases and there is finality, Arnold’s numbers will be depressed.  36% is not a number where anybody can count on re-election.  If there’s anything that was proven from the special election, it’s that Arnold can be successfully villified to such an extent that he can be marginilized.  As John Paul Jones said, “We have not yet begun to fight”

Maybe, as long as there’s a bill on term limits, campaign finance, etc.  There is a push, especially in the Senate, to make one giant deal out of several issues: campaign finance, redistricting, initiative reform, and term limits.

On their own, none of the four major proposed electoral reforms moving through the Legislature would seem to have much of a chance. But with separate motivations, Democratic legislative leaders are helping to guide all of the measures through the committees, and they may all be linked together by the time the legislative session is over.

Though still a long shot, it is increasingly likely that efforts to change the state’s election-financing system, the state’s initiative process, the way the state draws legislative and Congressional districts and a possible tweak of the state term-limits law may all be folded into a monster end-of-session package. Though the measures would not literally be linked, there are now talks under way to try to move all four measures as a group. (Capitol Weekly 4/13/106)

More on the flip.

Of course most of these reforms, if not all, would need to get approved by voters, individually.  The discussion of combining term limits with redistricting has been going on for quite a while.  I am a little surprised at the initiative reform getting thrown in there.  However, I think the idea of initiative reform is a great one.  As I understand it, ACA 18 makes it easier for the Legislature to work with proponents of initiatives to address their concerns.  To me, this would be a great idea.  Perhaps it would allow the Legislature to actually participate in the governance of the state.

The campaign financing issue is coming to a head because of the California Nurses Association’s efforts towards getting a public financing initiative on the November ballot.  Lori Hancock (D-Berkeley) has a bill (AB 583) that goes most of the way towards that goal.  I’m not sure how CNA feels about it, but I’m guessing that they might satisfied with that bill.  However, it passed the Assembly with no GOP votes, so it faces a tough road.  Public financing might stand a better chance in the initiative process.  It’s one reason why I’m a little confused why the GOP hasn’t begun working towards dealing a compromise plan.  Perhaps they just love their dirty money. (Perhaps—Hah!)

Now, the combining of the 4 plans might help the less popular programs, like finance and initiative reform.  You would think softening the term limits would be popular with all of the legislators, but you never know.  Maybe Perata wants to trade redistricting for public financing and initiative reform.  Is it a trade the GOP is willing to make? I guess we’ll see in the upcoming months.

The Field poll also says that there are still a big block of undecideds.  Also, because most of the movement since Field’s February poll is due to the advertising, Westly should have an advantage.  I think a lot of people are still trying to figure out who these two are.  But, that being said, Westly’s lead is significant:

Westly, the multimillionaire former eBay executive, is topping Angelides, the one-time Sacramento real estate developer, in every area of the state and among every subgroup of California residents in jumping to a 37 percent to 26 percent lead, Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said Thursday.

  More than a third of the Democratic electorate remains undecided in assessing the candidates, however, which leaves Angelides – armed with the support of most of the state’s party leaders and of labor unions that get out the vote – plenty of opportunity to get back in the contest, DiCamillo said. (Sac Bee 4/14/06)

I think both candidates have built up strengths so far in the campaign.  Angelides has excelled at working the traditional Dem networks.  He gets more endorsements from traditional Dem. organizations (such as the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Dem. club that I am a member of) every day.  These are not insignificant events.  These Clubs bring GOTV efforts and grassroots orginizations.  Westly has been better at 1) getting money (although in Angelides’ defense, much of that money is Westly’s own) and 2) building a better online presence.  The monetary edge has enabled this early momentum that Westly has, but the traditional orginizations do most of their work near election day.  The race is still tight.

But more importantly, the races between both candidates and Schwarzenegger are still really close.  Increased name ID from the primary fight will probably improve these numbers:

Schwarzenegger’s positives continue in head-to-head match-ups with the Democrats. The poll found him tied with Westly, 43 percent to 43 percent (the Republican governor trailed the controller, 41 percent to 37 percent, in February) and beating Angelides, 44 percent to 40 percent (up from a 39-39 tie in February).

That being said, the Governator’s not inclined numbers are still not great:

Barely a third of the electorate – 36 percent – says it is inclined to vote for him in November. But the number of “not inclined” has dropped to 45 percent from the 57 percent of voters who felt that way in June 2005.

36% without a real opponent? That ain’t great.  Once we officially nominate somebody and begin to make a statewide case, we’ll be ok.  People want a governor who is capable of leading, and not just pandering to whichever way the wind is blowing.

The Field Poll for Schwarzenegger’s approval rating is out.  Basically, people don’t really care about the Governator.  His results (last month):
Approve 39%(40) Disapprove 47%(49) No Opinion 14%(11)

You might notice that the biggest gainer (in fact only gainer) is No Opinion. I say that it’s that Arnold has failed to be a leader to such an extent that the Governor is not an important figure in most Californian’s lives.  When you don’t do much, why would anybody have an opinion.  Of course, this works in the other way.  He’s not doing much to harm people (ie his terrible propositions last year), so people are less disapproving of him.  I say good work Governor, you’ve managed to accomplish so little that people don’t even care.

More analysis on the flip.

The pollsters feel differently apparently:

“There’s a certain segment of the voters who are reappraising Schwarzenegger,” said Mark DiCamillo, poll director. “It’s not that they don’t know about him, they are just not sure what to make of his new public posture. The question will be, how will those undecided voters break.” (SF Chron 4/13/06)

You say tomato, I say potato…yada, yada… He says undecided, I say apathetic.  But if voters are apathetic, it’s due to the fact that Arnold doesn’t excite people like he used to.  The star power is wearing off.

At any rate, 39% approval is still pretty darn low to try to win re-election.  Especially where independents break to Democrats more often than Republicans.  I think a lot of the mystery will be taken away after the primary when there is an actual candidate.  Certainty in the Dem nominee will also help.  Either candidate stacks up well against the Governor as it now stands, and given the “wrong track” numbers (currently 56% according to this poll), I like the chances of a Democratic governor in 2007.

Who knows?  Bilbray says he’s the “presumptive” candidate. 

Neither of the two leading candidates claimed outright victory after Tuesday’s special election to finish the final eight months of Cunningham’s term. They were separated by less than 900 votes.

With 100 percent of the precincts counted, lobbyist and former GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray had 19,366 votes or 15 percent of the vote in California’s 50th District. Eric Roach, a venture capitalist who poured at least $1.8 million of his own money into the race, had 18,486 votes or 14 percent.

You also have to love that Roach’s money could only buy one vote for each $10.  $10/vote.  Wow, those are some expensive votes.  So, while neither Republican can decide who is the winner, they can spend lots of money to decide nothing.

But Roach hasn’t ruled anything out.  Anything.

“We are waiting for those final 10,000 votes to be counted,” said Roach spokesman Stan Devereux. “Then we’ll see if a recount is necessary.”

Devereux didn’t rule out the possibility that Roach might attempt a write-in campaign in the June runoff if he finishes behind Bilbray.

Well, I must admit that I thought Busby vs. Bilbray was my dream scenario for the runoff (if there had to be one.)  But I take that back.  My dream scenario is now Roach running a well-financed write-in campaign and handing the election to Busby.  Hey Eric, you want to spend another $10/vote?

Well, not opposition, but not endorsing, and definitely not “fantastic” (thanks Julia).

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign said Wednesday he would not endorse a universal preschool initiative that filmmaker Rob Reiner has championed, citing the governor’s long-standing opposition to tax increases.

“Put simply, the governor does not support tax increases and is opposed to Proposition 82 because it will raise taxes,” Katie Levinson, communications director for the Schwarzenegger reelection campaign, said in a statement.(LA Times 4/13/06)

I can understand Schwarzenegger’s hesitancy over the tax increase; he is a Norquist-Republican after all (now, there’s a nice meme).  But, from what I understood, he had agreed to stay out of this race entirely if he wasn’t going to endorse it (more as a personal favor to Rob Reiner than anything else).  Well, I still haven’t heard anything directly from the Governor’s mouth, but I’m not expecting to.  He tends not to say much of consequence when can. 

If you want to endorse it, do that.  If you don’t, then just say that you oppose it.  Arnold needs to learn that Sacramento is not Hollywood.  You can’t just smile and say nothing.  He needs to be leader.  Or more accurately, we need a NEW governor who is going to be a leader.