By Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog

Jim Cook, in his third attempt at winning the 10th Assembly District, is beginning to realize that the third time isn't always a charm. He hasn't quite given up, but in an interview with the Stockton Record, Cook's answers to questions seemed resigned and even bitter.

Cook was asked why he is running for a third time after a bruising defeat (61% to 34%) in which votes for Cook didn't even reach the Democratic registration in the district. His answer was a stock answer from someone who sees a campaign slipping away. To “force” the agenda, “force other people who are running to hold up their end of the bargain…” He added, “I'll just do my best.”

This is a far cry from what I've heard from Cook before. Just a few weeks ago he told an audience at a forum in Sacramento that he was “in this to win.” Now he just wants to do his best. What's changed? For one, his opponent, Alyson Huber, has been picking up support and endorsements from people and groups who supported Cook in the past. One apparent sore point is the Democratic Party endorsement that Huber won last month.

Do you feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, which has endorsed Huber? “I think it's good for the party. It's obvious that I don't fit the progressive Democratic agenda: I'm more conservative than them. Some in the progressive movement wanted to move in another direction. They've gone out and circled the wagons on me.” 

I'm not sure what it is that he is saying is “good for the party.” The competition perhaps, or maybe two sides, one conservative, one progressive, pulling toward the middle. What he does admit is that he isn't where the party wants to be, and he sounds bitter saying “they've gone out and circled the wagons on me.”

Far from circling wagons, Democrats in AD-10 are looking forward. We've put our hopes on Cook twice before. This year, there is another candidate in the race that, unfortunately for Cook, is seen as having the best chance to put this district in the Democratic column.

Huber summed up the feelings of voters in one of her answers that referred to Cook's loss in 2006.

“After I saw what happened in 2006” – Cook earned a lower percentage of the vote than the baseline percentage of Democrats in the 10th District – “I really felt like we needed a new candidate. It's time to try something new.”

Cook has had ample opportunity to prove himself to voters. In his first run in 2004 he was a write-in candidate. In 2006 he defeated Kevin Tate in the primary. Both years he lost in the general. If Cook sees wagons circling, they aren't circling him. The wagons are circling around Huber, preparing to carry a new candidate and a new hope for 10th AD Democrats.

by Randy Bayne

x-posted from California Notes

Poor planning may be what ultimately spells disaster for proponents of recalling Senator Jeff Denham. They were so gung-ho about collecting enough signatures to place the recall on the ballot, they seemingly forgot part two of the plan – a candidate to replace Denham if the recall was successful.

Of two seriously mentioned candidates, Merced County DA Larry Morse and Monterey County Supervisor Simón Salinas, only Salinas remains, and he has not committed. Morse has declined to be a candidate.

As I was discussing this with someone else, I realized that a significant problem this campaign had from the start was planning for the gathering of signatures while not planning steps if the recall actually qualified. It leaves me wondering if they really thought they would get enough signatures in the first place.

They should have understood that a recall is really two questions. First, should someone be recalled. Second, who replaces him or her. Proponents seem to have focused on the first without thinking much about the second. Now they are left scrambling to meet a Friday deadline to get a candidate.

Further complicating matters is term-limits. Since Denham has already served two years his recall replacement will only get the remainder of his terms, six years, at most. Sources tell me Salinas was going to challenge Denham in 2010 anyway. He would then be eligible for the full eight years, or until 2018. If he wins in the recall he can stay until 2014. Salinas, or any candidate, will need some kind of assurances into the future if they are expected grab the immediate six years rather than wait another two to get eight. Make sense?

Recall proponents have little time to find a candidate who would be willing to come in for the short term. It would have to be someone willing to just give Democrats an extra budget vote this summer, one that perhaps will be the difference. It will truly have to be someone who has little, if any, interest in remaining in politics, and possibly someone who is willing to just fill out the remain two years on Denham’s first term then step aside in favor of a party favorite.

Underlying the lack of planning on the part of recall enthusiasts, is the question of out-of-state signature gatherers involved in the petition collection. Hank Shaw notes:

What is highly amusing is that the Denham folks are asking local law enforcement to investigate the matter. Why is this amusing? Because the man who would be responsible for such an investigation would be none other than … Larry Morse, the Merced County District Attorney. Yes, the same Larry Morse who would have clearly been Denham’s most formidible opponent in the recall, had he chosen to pull the trigger. For the record, he didn’t.

There seems to be evidence a plenty to get signatures kicked, but that may not be needed. Poor planning and a lack of a candidate may be enough to doom the recall.

by Randy Bayne
x-posted at The Bayne of Blog

A new Field Poll was released today showing most Californians are in favor of an initiative to divide the electoral vote along congressional district lines. Currently, along with 47 other states, California awards all of its 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner.

Under a proposal, which could be on the June 2008 ballot, California’s electoral votes would be awarded by congressional district. Had this been in place in ’04, George W. Bush would have received 22 of California’s electoral votes to John Kerry’s 33. Bush could have lost Ohio and other state and still have won the election.

While this plan might make sense if all 50 states adopted it, it makes no sense to dilute California’s vote by joining Maine and Nebraska, the only states that award electoral votes in this manner. Between the two of them, Maine and Nebraska account for only nine electoral votes – hardly enough to sway most presidential elections.

According to the Field Poll,

The results show that voters initially support the idea of allocating California’s EVs on a district level by a 47% to 35% margin.

The results change slightly when voters are begin to understand what the effect would be.

After voters are told of the political implications of the change, opinions become somewhat more divided, with those backing a changeover to a district-by-district allocation method outnumbering those favoring winner-take-all by a 49% to 42% margin. Opinions are highly partisan, with 70% of Republicans endorsing the changeover to a district-by-district allocation method. Democrats and non-partisans, by contrast, favor keeping the current winner-take-all approach but by narrower five-to-four margins.

There are two ways to view this poll.

“It shows that without much (campaigning) … there’s a gut-level notion that this is the fair way of doing things,” said Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, a committee recently set up to push the measure. [SFGate.com]

And, as I said earlier, it might be a “fair way of doing things” if everyone, all 50 states did it the same way.

On the other side, Democrats, myself included, see it as a grab for at least some of California’s coveted electoral votes. And we are well aware of the Republican party’s penchant for stealing elections.

“Republicans are in disarray nationally right now. And in California, they aren’t even treading water. They’ll do everything they can to steal the White House in 2008. Our job is to make sure that we take it seriously and do everything we can to kill it,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party. [SFGate.com]

by Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog
Thanks to my friend Judy for suggesting this x-post.

Congressman Dan Lungren (CA-3) held a town hall meeting in Jackson on Saturday. He came to talk to Amador Co. residents about four issues, immigration, Iraq, spending and earmarks. Most of the two hours was spent on immigration, with few local issues being addressed. As a matter of fact, Lungren seemed disturbed that these constituents would bother him with anything local. He certainly didn’t want the audience driving the conversation off his pre-determined course.

He entered the auditorium at Jackson City Hall barely noticed, shook a couple hands, and headed straight for the donuts.

After an introduction by Amador Co. Sheriff Martin Ryan in which he received so much praise it simply had to be phony, Lungren took center stage and started into an explanation of the role of the California Attorney General, an office he used to hold. It felt like he was trying to waste time so he wouldn’t have to face too many questions.

Before questions from constituents, Lungren talked about four issues that he says generate the most mail to his office – immigration, Iraq, federal spending and earmarks.

Immigration

Congressman Lungren makes a point on immigration.
© A.R. Bayne

“Congress and the President got it wrong,” says Lungren, when they debated immigration legislation earlier this year. In one the few criticisms of President Bush that I’ve heard come from the Congressman, Lungren said he, “lead with his heart rather than his head.” Something I had to laugh at for two obvious reasons; heart and head.

He went on to say that what we need is to finish building a wall around the U.S. to keep people out, using contracted labor, rather than federal employees, of course. We also need to allow people in from Mexico to do our dirty work through a guest worker program, and keep people from claiming citizenship just because they were born here.

Iraq

Lungren continues to insist on calling the occupation in Iraq a “war,” and insisting that we cannot leave until the country is stabilized. When will the occupation supporter realize that we are the reason the country is unstable? Probably never, since he also said the military in Iraq is “being successful.”

Of course, he couldn’t resist playing the “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” fear card.

“I’m going to be guided tremendously by what he says,” said Lungren referring to General David Petraeus.

Federal Spending

Who are you lookin’ at?
© A.R. Bayne

Lungren brushed by this subject rather quickly after blaming Katrina and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis on local governments not spending enough. He indicated that the federal government is not responsible for local infrastructure.

He also mentioned SCHIP, the federal program to provide health insurance to children. Claiming it “goes to far” he opposes reauthorization. The problem he has with it, he says, is that it covers too many people. According to Lungren only the very old and the very young are deserving of health care.

Apparently, in Lungren’s world, the only responsibility of the federal government is to build walls and occupy sovereign nations.

Earmarks

People of the 3rd Congressional District shouldn’t expect any help from their congressman when it comes to bringing needed programs and money to our district. He clearly is against helping his home district if it brings no benefit to people in other parts of the country. Just who is he representing?

When asked about federal help for a Community College in Amador Co., Lungren told the questioner that Amador Co. hasn’t shown a need for a Community College. That was rather insulting if you ask me.

He said his “earmarks have to do with transportation and show a federal nexus.”

One of the most interesting parts of the morning was a question from a woman about the amount of money being spent in Iraq and what we could accomplish at home if we weren’t spending it on a failing foreign policy. Lungren avoided an answer by returning to his previous statement about stabilization, and once again playing the fear card.

The brush off
© A.R. Bayne

I came away from the town hall with the realization of just how badly we need further change in Congress. Democrats have been sorely disappointed by their representatives who have capitulated and followed the Republican lead on some issues, but we cannot abandon the success we have achieved, and we cannot allow Republicans to regain a foot hold on power. As disappointed as I am in many of our legislators at the federal level, I have to look beyond what they have done in the short term and look toward the long term.

Defeating Republicans like Richard Pombo and, in this next election John Doolittle, is relatively easy. They are certifiably corrupt and have plenty of dirt to use against them, making it easier to attack them on the issues. Besides, no one likes them.

Defeating the Lungrens of the world is much more difficult. Without the corruption, the battle is solely formed around ideology and issues, and is much more difficult to win. Lungren is immensely popular in his district, and that is difficult for a challenger to overcome even if he wrong on the issues. Unfortunately, too much of American politics is about popularity rather than substance.

We need to keep strong Democrats in Congress, and it is imperative that we rid ourselves of Congress persons that espouse policies similar to Lungren’s. Challengers to Lungren have not surfaced yet. There has been some talk, some names mentioned, but so far no one has stepped forward. That could change as early as tomorrow. I will keep you posted.