(This is officially becoming a trend.  Read to the bottom for Newsom’s wrongheaded assessment of the May 19 special election. – promoted by David Dayen)

Mayor Gavin Newsom must assume that when releasing a budget everyone expects to have cuts, the press will just take a few pictures, jot down some snappy quotes, and – maybe – read his one-page press release.  Beyond Chron, however, bothered to review the whole proposal, and the numbers contradict what Newsom said in his speech – where he assured us Public Health cuts would be less severe than feared.  The budget has over $100 million in cuts for that Department, not $43 million as he claimed.  Newsom also said the Mayor’s Office would get a 28% cut, but the figures show only 9% of his staff are being laid off – and the division that runs his media operation would actually get bigger.  And in a strange twist, Newsom said he really didn’t like some cuts that he proposed – and would “count on” the Supervisors to restore them during the add-back process, but left unsaid where to find the money.  As San Francisco faces its worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Newsom bragged that Police and Fire are getting no layoffs – while the rich and Downtown businesses will not be paying more taxes.  He also warned more budget cuts are coming from the state, echoing the threats of Governor Schwarzenegger.

June 1st is when the Mayor has to submit a budget, and over the next month the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Committee will scrutinize his proposal, and offer some amendments before final passage in July.  Newsom took the unilateral step of making $71 million in mid-year cuts earlier this year without approval of the legislative branch, and the question now is how the Board will handle another onslaught of painful decisions – in a way that most fairly “shares the pain” to protect the most vulnerable.  But first, Gavin needed his orchestrated press event.

I’ve attended my share of press conferences in Room 200 – but yesterday’s one appeared calculated to keep most local media at bay.  Rather than have Mayor Newsom speak in the reception area, we were ushered into a back room.  Then, we were told we could not go inside – but could watch from behind a doorway, as elected officials and department heads crowded in to take their seats.  Before the event started, the staff asked homeless rights advocate Jennifer Friedenbach to leave because she was not “credentialed press” – although she was there to cover the event for Street Sheet.  Later on, the only courtesy that Newsom’s staff gave us was for each reporter to briefly step into the room (one at a time) to take photos of the Mayor giving his speech.

Newsom spoke for about an hour, outlining his budget proposal and how he “looked forward” to working with the Supervisors over the next month.  Despite the City facing a half-a-billion dollar deficit, Newsom said he had a “balanced budget with no taxes and no borrowing” which “doesn’t come close” to balancing it on the backs of Public Health (DPH) or Human Services (HSA).  The Mayor had asked all Department Heads to make 12.5% in cuts, but these agencies that serve the poorest were spared from such an extent – adding, he said, that HSA only had $27 million in cuts, and DPH only about $43 million.

It wasn’t until reading the 430-page document that I learned this was at best misleading, and at worst a lie.  You can probably get $43 million in Public Health by just counting the cuts to various contract services like substance abuse, mental health, Health At Home, community health, ambulatory care and emergency services.  But that still doesn’t count the $100 million in net budget cuts to S.F. General Hospital and Laguna Honda.  Newsom also claimed the City will be getting $80 million in federal stimulus funds to help with Medi-Cal reimbursements.  Turns out the actual figure is $37 million.

Newsom acknowledged that “layoffs are in the budget,” and 1,603 positions would have to be eliminated.  The Mayor added that he cut 28% out of his own budget, which he used to point out that everyone was asked to tighten their belts.  But the budget proposal shows that the Mayor’s Office would get a 60% increase, although much of that includes various funds and services.  Just looking at what percentage of staff would be laid off in that department, it’s only 9% – or less than the 12% target Newsom gave to all other agencies.  The Mayor’s Office of Public Policy & Finance (which includes his bloated media relations division) will actually get 29% more than this year under his proposal.

In a bizarre (almost Orwellian) moment, Newsom lamented some of his cuts – and said he hoped the Board of Supervisors would reverse them.  Specifically, he mentioned the mental health and substance abuse cuts in the Health Department budget.  “I’m counting on [the Board] to add back the things I don’t want cut,” he said.  But the Mayor’s budget proposal is supposed to be just that – his proposal – and the political fight then happens as the Supervisors debate his funding priorities, and vote to make any changes.

I asked Newsom why propose these cuts in the first place if he wants them reversed, and he replied “because I have to submit a balanced budget.”  I pointed out the Supervisors also must pass a balanced budget, and he replied they could use the “add-back” process.  But “add-backs” are only possible if there’s money, which is no guarantee in this year’s fiscal crisis.  Newsom said that the Board’s Budget Analyst Harvey Rose would figure it out later, like he does “every year” – even though this is no ordinary year.

One group the Mayor bragged won’t see layoffs is the Police, despite the controversy about them taking millions from Muni in “work orders” to patrol buses.  Now, a Channel 7 investigative report shows the cops aren’t doing what they’re getting paid for in that program.  The Supervisors may have pried $5 million from Police to give back to the MTA, but the Mayor’s Police budget still has a $14 million line item for work orders.  Newsom adds the Fire Department won’t have cuts, while the Firefighters Union pays his consultant – Eric Jaye – to run the campaign against “rolling brownouts” that would save money.

The Mayor concluded his remarks by discussing what could make our budget worse: the unresolved fiscal crisis in Sacramento.  Governor Schwarzenegger’s May revise proposed borrowing money from city and county governments to help the state’s financial situation, which could blow another $175 million hole in the City’s deficit.  Newsom called it a “done deal” in his speech, but I got him to acknowledge (after the speech) that two-thirds of the state legislature must still approve it – before Arnold has carte blanche to raid California’s broke localities.

Newsom also addressed the state’s recent special election, and said the “message was clear – the people want us to find $6 billion in more cuts.”  That’s a disturbing analysis, as polling evidence shows that the voters did not vote “for cuts” when they rejected a fatally flawed budget package that was the product of political extortion.  The state budget can also be balanced with deeply popular revenue measures – such as an oil severance tax, or restoring upper-income tax brackets to what Republican Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan agreed to during hard times.  We need to fight for this.

Gavin Newsom wants to be Governor, but his analysis of the state budget mess is the last thing progressives need right now – and calls into question whether he’s ready for prime time.  As Schwarzenegger pushes for an “all-cuts” budget, we need Democrats in Sacramento who fight back – and help build momentum and public outrage against the two-thirds rule.  Newsom supports lowering the threshold to pass a state budget, but he has not shown the willingness to lead on this issue.  For now, progressives should be looking elsewhere …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

The California Democratic Party “split the baby” on the six propositions for the May 19th ballot – endorsing Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F, while not supporting Props 1A, 1D and 1E.  This shifts the dynamic for the last three weeks.  No longer can Prop 1A’s defeat be a mandate against tax increases – because the measure’s “spending cap” is why progressives oppose it.  Likewise, “no” on Props 1D and 1E is now a vote for the state to fund children’s health programs and mental health services.  And while many liberals fear the short-term “budget gap” if the measures all go down, the Party endorsed a “yes” vote on Prop 1C – which would have the most immediate impact.  The Party’s support for Prop 1B is a mandate for public schools – and while Prop 1A’s defeat would prevent 1B from going into effect, a “yes” vote could pressure Governor Schwarzenegger to stop gutting education money.  Democrats in the legislature promoted all six measures as a “budget package” to avert fiscal disaster.  But it was a rotten deal, and the strategy would leave us no better off on May 20th towards a long-term solution.  With this new dynamic, we can build momentum for scrapping the “two-thirds rule” in the state budget.

This weekend’s State Convention showcased the disconnect between the Party grassroots and the Sacramento leadership.  Our legislators cut a deal with Schwarzenegger they honestly believed was the right thing to do, but the rank-and-file was angry at sacrificing core fiscal values just to kick the can down the road.  California’s budget woes are structural, and until the state passes major reform the right-wing Republicans will keep holding a gun to our heads.  Getting rid of the two-thirds rule – as soon as possible – is the only acceptable “budget reform” for the ballot.

At the Young Democrats’ caucus on Friday night, various legislators urged us to support these flawed measures – because there would be dire consequences if they failed.  As a friend said to me while we listened to each politician, “Q: How do you get young people to disagree with you?  A: Tell them they have no choice.”  That summed up the sentiment of many delegates, who felt pressured to back something they had no power in crafting.

Some of the arguments we heard in favor of Proposition 1A were: (a) our right-wing foes at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association oppose it, and (b) if it fails, it will send a message that the public opposes tax increases.  Of course, the latter is only true if the sole opposition is right-wing zealots and the Republican Party.  Prop 1A is a lot more than just extending a few temporary tax increases.  It gives the state – which already has layers of fiscal straitjackets on the revenue side – another fiscal straitjacket on the spending side.

After the Democratic Convention vote on Sunday, press coverage on Prop 1A started to change.  The Los Angeles Times called it a “state spending cap,” while the San Francisco Chronicle said it was a “proposed spending cap and rainy-day fund.”  Before progressives began to oppose Prop 1A, the media only focused on tax increases – even though these temporary measures will stay on the books for two years if Prop 1A fails.  That’s because the only ones complaining about 1A were Republicans like Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, and the “tea party” crowd.

Rather than allow right-wing zealots to “own” the opposition, liberals began to articulate a fiscal agenda to drive the post-May 19th debate.  If our ultimate goal is to scrap the “two-thirds rule,” it is smart politics to influence what happens when the Governor and legislature go back to the drawing board.  Because the state will have an $8 billion deficit even if all measures pass, making the progressive case against 1A is a sound strategy.

Going back to the drawing board will mean choosing what budget priorities need to be fought for.  If the Democratic Party had endorsed Propositions 1D and 1E, it would have sent the message that children and the mentally ill are expendable.  And the combined “savings” from diverting these funds to help balance the budget is less than one billion dollars – or about 1% of the entire budget.  Non-profits who directly work with these constituencies have campaigned against the measures.  Defeating them will be a mandate to protect progressive fiscal priorities.

Nevertheless, liberals are anxious and fearful about the next round of painful budget cuts.  It’s understandable that many delegates at the Convention held up placards to endorse the measures while holding their noses.  Which is why the Democrats endorsed Proposition 1C, the measure that borrows up to $5 billion against future lottery revenues to balance this year’s budget.  Of all six measures on the May 19th ballot, Prop 1C has the biggest short-term downside if it fails.

Robert Cruickshank wrote a solid piece yesterday on Calitics, advising Democratic leaders to dump the “yes on everything” strategy – and focus on Prop 1C.  “Aside from the flawed nature of the proposals and how they came onto the ballot,” he wrote, “selling them as a single package was a disastrous move. If they want to salvage anything from this sinking ship, they could tell Californians why take a chance on borrowing against the lottery via Prop 1C, and how it will help our Democratic leaders more strongly resist Republican demands for massive cuts, instead of assume those cuts are a foregone conclusion.”

The Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 1B, which would give the public schools $9.3 billion of money that already belongs to them.  But because it would only take effect if the voters approve Prop 1A, legislators have dismissed progressive groups who are “No on 1A” and “Yes on 1B” for being inconsistent.  However, it has become popular for liberals to “hedge their bets” in case the voters pass Prop 1A.  If the state is going to have a spending cap, it makes sense to secure a slice of the money for schools.

On the other hand, advocates have an alternative to Prop 1B – which is to go to court to enforce the Constitutional requirement of education funding.  But if voters pass 1B while defeating 1A, it could strengthen the hand of Democrats who negotiate with Arnold and the Republicans – because the voters have affirmed public schools.

At the Democratic Convention, newly elected Chairman John Burton urged delegates who disagree on the propositions not to let these divisions keep us apart.  The state will be in bad fiscal shape regardless of what happens on May 19th, and progressives must keep their focus on eliminating the “two-thirds rule.”  This weekend’s split decision on the various budget measures can help forge a path towards a sane fiscal policy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francicso’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.  He was a delegate at the California Democratic Party’s convention, and gave one of the floor speeches against Proposition 1E.

Before the California Democratic Convention ended yesterday, delegates bucked the Party leadership on the May 19th ballot measures – by securing a “no endorsement” on Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E.  State legislators and Party operatives pushed “yes” on all six measures, but enough of the grassroots who stayed for the tail end of the session refused to go along.  I’ve been attending these Conventions for 12 years, and it’s clear now that activists and “reform” types run the Party – a stark contrast to how it once was.  That’s because Howard Dean and Barack Obama brought in a new wave of rank-and-file members, and now we see the impact.  College students have replaced the “professional” types that once dominated the Young Democrats caucus.  Reformer Hillary Crosby won the race for State Party Controller, and even John Burton’s election as Party Chair is a good thing for the activist wing.  Politicians must adapt to this change, and it’s clear some of them – like John Garamendi – still don’t get it.  In the race for Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was not well received at the Convention by delegates from his hometown – as he painted a rosy picture of how things are in the City.  And while Chris Daly ran as a “reformer” in the race for Regional Director, other factors contributed his defeat.

Grassroots Buck Establishment on May Propositions

On Friday, the Resolutions Committee (all of whom are appointed by the Chair) approved a “yes” vote on all six Propositions for the May 19th special election – i.e., the budget package sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the state legislature.  Under the Party’s arcane rules, this would be the default position of California Democrats – unless delegates pulled each Proposition from the consent calendar for a floor vote on Sunday afternoon (when many rank-and-file delegates had left.)  If a Proposition was pulled, a 60% vote would be required to uphold the “yes” vote – or the Party would take a neutral position.

In past years, delegates would come to these Conventions to network and hear politicians give speeches.  But the new wave of Party activists are different, and they weren’t happy with rubber-stamping these Propositions.  On Sunday afternoon, delegates took all six measures to a floor vote.  Three of them (Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F) ended up passing the 60% threshold, so the Resolutions Committee was sustained — which means the Party has endorsed them.  But delegates blocked an endorsement of Propositions 1A (the budget spending cap), 1D (a raid on children’s health fund) and 1E (divert mental health money), forcing a neutral position.  As a delegate who gave a floor speech against Prop 1E, I’m proud it got the lowest level of support among the six measures.

My friend David Dayen at Calitics live-blogged the floor debate on all the Propositions.  For a play-by-play account, click here.

Young Democrats Bigger and Younger

“The Party better get us a bigger room next year for our caucus,” bellowed one candidate for President of the California Young Democrats – as hundreds of young people packed into a room at the Convention Center.  We all know Barack Obama inspired a whole new generation of young people into politics, but seeing the CYD caucus – and remembering what it was like ten years ago – was an emotional experience.  The age cut-off for CYD is 36, and when I was in college it was dominated by political operatives in their early thirties.  I used to call it “California Yuppie Democrats.”  Today, the vast majority of members are college students – and they have a healthy dose of high school chapters.

Burton and Crosby Elections a Win for Reformers

Two years ago, rank-and-file delegates wanted an audit of the State Party – so grassroots activists could know how the money was being spent.  They complained the Party didn’t put resources in red counties – building an infrastructure to be competitive everywhere.  The Chair shut them down, so they ran one of their own for Party Controller.  Hilary Crosby beat incumbent Eric Bradley by a 54-46 margin, after running a disciplined campaign that tapped into the energy of delegates who cut their teeth with the Howard Dean effort.  Crosby wants the Party to raise money from small grass-roots donors, so it will be less dependent on big checks from institutions.

While it’s tempting to view John Burton’s election as Party Chair as a return of the “old guard,” anyone who knows the former State Senator understands it’s a very good thing for progressives.  “There’s nothing old-fashioned about helping the poor,” said Burton in his victory speech, as he made it clear that the Party’s activist wing will have a powerful ally.  Burton’s nomination was moved by the President of California Young Democrats, and seconded by the head of Take Back Red California – two growing constituencies.  It was a signal Burton understands where the Party has to go.

Garamendi Puts Himself Ahead of the Party

Along with East Bay blogger Sean Mykael, I spent a good part of the Convention talking to delegates about how John Garamendi has picked the wrong district to run for Congress – a selfish move that is destructive to the Party.  The Lieutenant Governor has injected himself in the 10th District’s special election, when he should be challenging District 3 incumbent Dan Lungren in his native Calaveras County.  Bill Durston, who lost to Lungren in 2008 by five points, told me it would make “so much sense” – and others like Charlie Brown (who ran in the 4th District) agreed.

Garamendi has stubbornly told everyone he won’t do it, and even told me there was nothing I could possibly say or do to change his mind.  But I sense some insecurity.  Rumors abounded Friday night that the “Draft Garamendi” flyers we were passing out was a plot by Mark DeSaulnier – one of the candidates in the 10th District who would benefit from that move.  I had to explain it was a just a couple of “angry bloggers” who don’t necessarily have a horse in the race.

Garamendi’s move is offensive because it (a) wastes an opportunity to grow the Party in a red district, and (b) kills the chances of candidates in the 10th District who are “rising stars,” but lack name-recognition.  I met one of these candidates this weekend – Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old gay African-American Iraq War veteran.  Woods was discharged from the military because of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then got a degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  He has a compelling story, and deserves a fair shot in the special election.

If the Party was still made up of hacks subservient to a politician’s personal agenda, John Garamendi would get away with this.  But with an influx of reformers and activists who don’t take no for an answer, “stay the course” will give him headaches down the road.

Newsom Paints Rosy Picture of San Francisco

When I arrived Friday, Gavin Newsom’s campaign for Governor had an army of college- age kids holding signs at a street corner.  I asked if any of them were from San Francisco, and none of them were.  I suggested they might not feel that way if they lived there.

Applause in the San Francisco section was light when Newsom gave his Convention speech on Saturday.  That’s because you would have no idea just by reading it that the City has a $500 million deficit, the Mayor has offered no specific revenue solutions – and has been largely absent from the City while he’s campaigning.

Newsom presented San Francisco as a solution to the state’s health care woes – without giving credit to Tom Ammiano, and failed to mention the City’s Health Department is getting horrible budget cuts.  He also didn’t give Ammiano credit for the Rainy Day Fund that averted layoffs in the City’s public schools.  And he touted the City’s “green” record, while our bus system has been starved because it’s an ATM to solve the budgets of other City Departments – up to $80 million.

Why Did Daly Lose to Longo?

In the race for Region 4 Director, Chris Daly branded himself a “reformer” from the Party’s activist wing – but lost badly to incumbent August Longo.  Daly partisans argued afterwards that a lot of progressives stayed away – for fear of offending unions who campaigned heavily against him.  About 40 out of 140 eligible voters did not cast ballots, and I noticed a few faces who weren’t there.  But my guess is it was only a handful – not enough to explain the 77-28 margin.

It’s clear the union angle had a big impact.  I had breakfast with two San Francisco delegates yesterday morning, whose politics made me presume they were for Daly.  Both of them voted for Longo, and labor was what did it for them.  But another factor may have been State Senator Mark Leno.  Not only did Leno speak for Longo at the meeting, but he also allegedly made personal phone calls to delegates on his behalf.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay’s 10th District – in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher.  On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field – although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive.  But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats – and progressive politics – for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren.  Tauscher’s seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3.  He has deep roots in the 3rd District – which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi’s native Calaveras County.  It is traditionally a “red” district, but Barack Obama carried it last November – and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger.  At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back “Red California,” Garamendi’s choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided.  Expect this to become an issue at this weekend’s State Democratic Convention.

Tauscher Seat Draws Many Candidates

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has been nominated for a high-level position in the State Department, and expects to resign her seat after getting confirmed.  While no special election has been scheduled yet, many politicians in the East Bay’s 10th District (which includes most of Contra Costa and Solano Counties) are already positioned to replace her.  With no term limits in Congress, an open seat is truly a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity for ambitious politicos – and there is no shortage of viable home-grown Democrats ready to make a run.  The 10th District was a conservative, suburban area when Tauscher first won it in 1996 – but Democrats there now have an eighteen-point edge in voter registration, making it (for all intents and purposes) a “safe” blue seat.

State Senator Mark DeSaulnier of Concord already has Tauscher’s blessing for the seat, along with endorsements by Congressman George Miller, State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson and State Senate President Darrell Steinberg.  State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan of Alamo – who picked up a “red” district in the last election – is also considering a run, although some have wondered if it’s a good idea.  Former San Francisco Examiner reporter Adriel Hampton is actively campaigning, and Anthony Woods – a Harvard-educated openly gay African-American Iraq War veteran – is contemplating a run.  All of these candidates are Democrats.

Based on polling for the race prior to Garamendi’s entry, “undecided” was the landslide winner – because all four candidates have very low name recognition.  As a four-time candidate for Governor, two-time State Insurance Commissioner, and current Lieutenant Governor, it is fair to assume that John Garamendi will be the new front-runner.  And with the compressed schedule of a special election, Garamendi would benefit from the crowded field to win a relatively easy victory by a plurality vote.  It’s no surprise that Garamendi has dropped out of a grueling run for Governor (where he was simply outgunned by three better-funded opponents), and going to Congress is a nice consolation prize.

But is it wise for Garamendi to run for Congress in District 10 – or should he run in District 3 against Dan Lungren?  Garamendi currently lives in Walnut Grove, in the southwest corner of Sacramento County – at the very edge of District 10.  Half of the town is in District 10, but the other half is in District 3.  As he told the San Francisco Chronicle, his house literally straddles the border.  Rather than enter a crowded field of Democrats, Garamendi would better serve the Party’s goals and the progressive cause by running in the 3rd District.  All he would have to do is change his voter registration to his family ranch in Calaveras County – where he has deep roots.

Lungren Seat is Tough, But Winnable

As I’ve written before, California is a deep blue state that is only getting bluer – as Republicans are increasingly turning off voters in places like Orange County and the Central Valley.  New registration statistics from the Secretary of State’s Office show that, for the first time, Republicans don’t have a majority of registered voters in a single Congressional District.  And last November, Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that currently have Republican incumbents – although the Democratic Party did not target them.  In California, Democrats have seats ripe for the picking.

One of these districts is Congressional District 3 – which includes the suburbs east of Sacramento, parts of Solano County, and stretches to the Nevada border to include all of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras Counties.  Right-wing Republican Congressman Dan Lungren (who lost to Gray Davis in the 1998 Governor’s race by a 20-point landslide) has represented it since 2004, and initially expected to have a safe seat.  For the longest time, Democrats assumed that fielding a candidate there was a hopeless cause.

But in 2006, an upstart Democrat named Bill Durston challenged Lungren – with no real support from the State Party.  He lost by 22 points, but tried a second time in 2008.  Again, the Party offered him few resources – but he came within 5.5% to scoring an upset.  On the same ballot, Barack Obama beat John McCain in the 3rd District.  Demographics played a role – the latest voter statistics show that registered Republicans outnumber Democrats there, but only by two percentage points.  Five years ago, the margin was seven points.  The national Democratic Party plans to target District 3 for 2010, and a candidate with high name-recognition could be what it takes.

Durston, however, has ruled out a third attempt to challenge Dan Lungren.  Without Garamendi, there is no clear candidate yet.

Garamendi’s Roots in District 3

If John Garamendi were to run for Congress, the logical place would be District 3 – not District 10.  He was born in Calaveras County, and his family has a ranch there – where he has many high-profile political functions.  In 1974, he was first elected to the State Assembly to what was then the 7th District, which includes much of the same territory.  In 1976, he won a seat to the State Senate – which he represented for fourteen years.  Again, it contained much of the same territory.  While Democrats should be diligent and leave no district behind, it’s also important to field candidates who can actually win.  And there are not many Democrats with Garamendi’s stature who could relate to rural voters in that way.

Because he was running for Governor, Garamendi has about $750,000 “cash-on-hand” in campaign contributions.  Assuming he can clear the legal hurdles to transfer these funds to a Congressional race, it would dwarf Dan Lungren’s re-election warchest of $121,000.  Of course, Garamendi could also easily outspend any of the Democrats in District 10 – but the more than six-to-one advantage he would have over Lungren proves that the race is eminently winnable.  In fact, the only way I could see why Garamendi wants to run in District 10 is that it would be easier.  But everyone else would miss out — it would replace a spirited race full of “new blood” candidates in District 10 with a lame coronation, while shutting out the Democrats’ best opportunity to win an extra Congressional seat.

Garamendi has been running for Governor since 1982, when he lost the primary to Tom Bradley.  He ran for State Controller in 1986 (a stepping stone for Governor), but lost the primary to Gray Davis.  He was elected State Insurance Commissioner in 1990, but passed on re-election to run for Governor in 1994 – only to lose the primary to Kathleen Brown.  After working for the Clinton Administration, he was again elected Insurance Commissioner in 2002.  In 2003, he entered the race for Governor during the Gray Davis recall – but dropped out two days later when it was apparent Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante had more support.  Three years later, the two men ran for each other’s job – which Garamendi won.  Shortly afterwards, he announced his plan to run for Governor in 2010 – where he has lagged behind other Democrats in polling and fundraising.

It’s no surprise that Garamendi has formed an “exit strategy” to run for Congress – given how the California Governorship has eluded him for three decades.  But if he wants a legacy that helps Democrats and progressives get stronger, Garamendi should run in District 3 – where his candidacy would be more helpful.  A group of bloggers have already launched a website that urges him to switch into the District 3 race.  Garamendi would be wise to listen to such counsel.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth will be a delegate at this weekend’s California Democratic Convention in Sacramento.  Stay tuned for a preview and updates in the next few days.  He is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily where this piece was first published.

My Internet connection at the Bay Area New Media Conference is agonizingly slow, but I just wanted to call your attention to Joe Eskenazi’s report on the riveting Regional Director race between Chris Daly and August Longo.

Intriguing Matchup for Next Democratic Regional Director: Chris Daly (Hothead) vs. August Longo (Convicted Felon) By Joe Eskenazi

When Supervisor Chris Daly tossed his hat into the ring for the low-profile position of Democratic Party Regional Director earlier this week, much of the ensuing media coverage focused on Daly’s history of polarizing and combative behavior. In short, was this man constitutionally capable of handling a job that, essentially, calls for him to bring together various segments of the party and impartially organize meetings in which party endorsements are decided? Can Chris Daly be anyone’s “liaison”?

Little was mentioned of Daly’s six-year incumbent opponent, August Longo. Yet Longo’s background is arguably more disturbing than Daly’s past experiences walking out of meetings or engaging in shouting matches with members of the public. Longo, also a member of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, was in 1981 indicted in New York of impersonating three different doctors, filling out false credit-card and loan applications, and passing more than 40 bad checks — to the tune of $467,000. He pleaded guilty to nine charges involving around $125,000.

In 1984 he “absconded” from New York and skipped his probation to travel to California — where he was later convicted of felony credit-card fraud in 1985. He was paroled in 1990, violated parole in ’91 and went back inside, and then left prison for good one year later and began traveling in Democratic Party circles (all of the above was covered during a thorough — but brief — series of articles by the Hearst Examiner’s Scott Winokur in 1997 — long before many of the 150 party apparatchiks voting for Regional Director were paying attention).

Information obtained from Jack Ryan, spokesman for the New York Department of Probation, indicates that a warrant was issued for Longo in 1984. This came to light during Winokur’s reporting in 1997 and Longo said at the time he would clear the matter up. Ryan reported that it wasn’t until 2002 that Longo returned to Manhattan where he was re-sentenced to probation, which was transferred to California. Longo’s case was closed in January of 2004.

Longo said his background was ancient history, and accused Daly of attempting to plant the story with “every paper in town.” This came as a surprise, as Daly had not returned your humble narrator’s calls since that one time in 2007.

“I’ve been vetted and I think this race will be decided on who will be the best regional director,” Longo said. “The fact Chris Daly is trying to bring this up … I think he can count the votes just like I can count the votes.”

Our subsequent call to Daly was returned (!) — and he denied spreading stories about Longo’s past. Daly said he sees his role as reaching out to the young, largely politically inexperienced folks energized by Barack Obama’s run to the presidency and bringing them into the Democratic Party — and these people would be turned off if he ran a nasty campaign. “I’m not going negative. I’m not going to run a negative race,” he said. “There have been negative e-mails from the other side against me, and I’m trying not to take the bait.”

Longo said he was confident he’d win the election, which will be held on April 25 in Sacramento. He carries endorsements from a number of elected officials and is a longtime ally of likely future state party chair John Burton. Yet a handful of city progressives told the Weekly they are eager for “new blood” and are backing Daly. And while no voter would say on the record that Longo’s criminal background would influence the election — it certainly can’t help, and, in this contested race, it could become a factor.

If you believe Longo, it already has.