(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry

(Not precisely CA, but many of our Reps (and both Senators) are implicated – promoted by jsw)

Over the weekend, Rep. John Hall (NY-19) posted a diary on DailyKos announcing his intention to introduce a House resolution censuring Rush Limbaugh today:

I know that there is a back and forth about whether another condemnation is worth the time. I happen to believe it is in this case. Therefore, I’m introducing a resolution that shows emphatically that Congress will not condone ad hominem political attacks on U.S. troops. On Monday, I’m introducing legislation to express the Sense of Congress that this body rejects and condemns Limbaugh’s heinous remarks, and will continue to engage in a debate on ending our involvement in Iraq that eschews character-based attacks on our Armed Forces.

Hall’s action followed on the heels of an email blast sent out by Jerry McNerney under the heading Chickenhawk Limbaugh Goes Too Far:

Yesterday, right-wing icon Rush  Limbaugh insulted everyone who has served our nation in uniform.

In an exchange with a caller, he actually called troops who return from Iraq and voice their opposition to the war “phony soldiers.”

Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation’s uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that’s too far!

Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush’s show off the air?

Meanwhile, Mark Udall (CO-02), the Colorado Congressman who is running for Senate in 2008, is seeking support for his own resolution to censure Limbaugh.

So why is it that after nearly 20 years of listening to Limbaugh’s blather, these Congressmen are suddenly SO offended by this particular comment? Gee, you don’t think it could be anything so politically craven and cowardly as a CYA for their votes in favor of censuring MoveOn, do you?

That’s right — all three of these Congress members voted to “condemn in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus.” So when they faced the inevitable strong blowback from their supporters (why are these guys always surprised by this stuff?), how did they respond? By trying to paint their stand as a noble, bipartisan defense of our troops. With all the problems facing us in the world, their primary concern is protecting our soldiers from rhetorical slings or barbs. You want to let them be blown up? Fine. But call them a name? Not on their watch!

Meanwhile, all of the members of Congress who voted to censure MoveOn and who are now contemplating censuring Limbaugh, have violated their oath of office: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

See how on the flip…

Here’s how Justices Black and Douglas put it, concurring with the majority opinion in BATES v. LITTLE ROCK:

First Amendment rights are beyond abridgment either by legislation that directly restrains their exercise or by suppression or impairment through harassment, humiliation, or exposure by government.

And why are these First Amendment rights held to be so inviolable? Again, I’ll defer to the Justices – this time Brandeis and Holmes in WHITNEY v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence [274 U.S. 357, 376] coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. […]

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Cross posted on The Progressive Connection

OK, I’m getting this in just under the wire.  Time for the House roundup for September.  There are a little over 13 months until Election Day, and with the end of the 3rd quarter on Sunday (donate), this election is really not that far away.  In fact, CQ Politics has put out their initial assessment of the House landscape.  It’s favorable for Democrats, but predictably, there are only two California seats on that radar: CA-04 and CA-11.  But there have been a lot of developments in the other races throughout the state as well.

I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I’m also, as usual, including the “Boxer number.”  Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is.  If I put “57,” that means Boxer received 57% of the vote.  Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)

First, let’s look at the one threatened seat currently held by a Democrat.

1) CA-11 (McNerney).  CQ Politics has the seat “Leans Democratic,” and only two Democratic seats are less safe (Tim Mahoney in FL-16 and Nancy Boyda in KS-02).  Dean Andal has the funds to make a challenge here, and he’s become a born-again environmentalist, which is curious considering his prior anti-environmental history.  But McNerney has done himself no favors.  His bungled rhetoric during the Iraq debate in August was met with outcry, and this week’s vote to condemn MoveOn.org, an organization that gave him over $50,000 in 2006, didn’t exactly enthuse activists either.  He tried to respond by blasting Rush Limbaugh’s comments and asking that he be taken off the air; I’m not sure how that jibes with the First Amendment.  McNerney will clearly have a lot of DCCC incumbency protection, but this is obviously a race that won’t be easy, and McNerney is making it difficult for activists to continue to support him.

Now, to the top 10 challengers.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  This is one of six Republican-held seats listed in CQ’s ratings as “No Clear Favorite,” and one of only two where the incumbent is running for re-election (the other is Robin Hayes against netroots hero Larry Kissell in NC-08).  Charlie Brown, who has a  great interview in CQ this week, actually announced his campaign just a few weeks ago as part of a barnstorming tour.  As for John Doolittle, his legal woes continue.  Eleven years’ worth of documents have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department, as part of the Abramoff case.  Doolittle is refusing to comply with the subpoena, setting up what could be a Constitutional showdown.  Meanwhile, he has at least three high-profile primary challengers, and a lot of pressure within the district to resign.  The more candidates in the primary actually helps Doolittle, as it spreads out the vote.  If it’s a two-person primary, he could easily lose.  And Brown would be in excellent position to beat Doolittle if there’s a rematch.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  Russ Warner, last seen at the Calitics Q3 event, has been busily raising money for the end of the quarter.  I’m told that the numbers will be better than Q2.  Warner has also gone on the offensive against David Dreier’s shameful voting record, being one of the first Congressional challengers to use the SCHIP vote as a campaign issue.  That’s going to be a big vote to highlight next year.  Meanwhile Dreier nearly caused an international incident in Colombia by sitting on a lectern, continued to whine about supposedly shoody treatment on the House Rules Committee (yeah, that never happened under Republicans), and had some shady connections with those who were trying to steal the Presidential election with the Dirty Tricks Initiative in California.

Of course, there’s a primary, but Hoyt Hilsman’s campaign website hasn’t been updated since July.  Russ Warner is running a professional campaign, and a good one thus far.

3) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 4.  Boxer number: 48.  Nick Leibham, who has two nice-looking dogs, is about to get the endorsement of Francine Busby for the Democratic primary, according to our man in San Diego. 

The field has been slowly clearing for a while now, with Michael Wray opting against a run and John Lee Evans running for School Board.  Steve Schechter has also filed FEC paperwork to run in the district, but this endorsement would line up the one major recognizable Democratic face in the district behind Leibham.  Putting to rest any remaining speculation that she might run again, much of the drama is likely over in the primary, leaving now more than a year of Bilbray-hunting.

Avoiding a primary would obviously be a plus for Leibham.  Meanwhile, Bilbray is being his usual brown-hating self, calling on the feds to pay local governments for the services spent on “illegal immigrants.”  This is immigrant bashing at its worst, but while it offends the conscience of the sane, his base is energized by these theatrics.  Leibham will have to do a better job of finding new voters than Busby did to have a shot at this district.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 47.  I’m still keeping this race fairly high, maybe higher than it should be, because of the possibility of retirement.  We’ve seen the mass exodus of Republicans from the House, as the prospects for them regaining those plum committee chairmanships grow dim.  Gallegly says he’s running, but he resigned last year before un-resigning, so he’s not that credible a source.  So far, the only challenger in this district is Mary Pallant, who officially declared her candidacy this week.  Pallant is a fellow AD delegate of mine, and a very progressive Democrat.

In announcing her intent to run, Pallant emphasized her stance as a “progressive Democrat,” and invoked Roosevelt in her campaign theme, a Newer and Fairer Deal for the 21st Century. Her platform is described as ending the occupation of Iraq, she said, as well as implementing a universal single-payer healthcare system, seeking energy independence while enforcing environmental protections and pursuing economic strength and security through economic self-sufficiency.

Other candidates seem to be waiting this one out until they see if Gallegly actually runs. Jill Martinez, the candidate in 2006, is rumored to be running again, but hasn’t declared officially.  Brett Wagner kind of says he’s running, but his website hasn’t been updated since February.  Education activist Chip Fraser may run; he once walked from Ventura to the state Capitol to promote education reform.  The district is smaller than that!

5) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 41.  Ron Shepston and his team have been spending September making appearances and raising money.  He did both in a Blue America chat on Firedoglake.  Blue America support has in the past been crucial to Congressional success around the country.  Meanwhile, Gary Miller has been voting for endless war in Iraq and against children’s health care and S-CHIP.  That puts him in line with every other California Republican, but Miller is also incredibly corrupt.  Although, he claims that he is not under FBI scrutiny, which is an inspiring political message.

Miller agreed to an on-the-record, unrecorded interview with The Hill days before the August recess, in which he rejected the
notion that the FBI is investigating him.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dick Singer, a spokesman for the city of Monrovia, Calif., said federal agents had interviewed city officials about a $10 million land deal in which Miller did not pay capital gains taxes.
Miller says no taxes were owed because he was forced to sell the land under threat of eminent domain.

Miller also pointed out that a “federal agent” could be any federal entity, such as the IRS. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS had questions after the liberal-leaning group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint to the federal agency against him in August 2006.

“I’m sure the IRS wanted to see the information. A federal agent could be anyone – anyone flashing a badge,” Miller said.

Though there’s not much new to report, these ethics concerns aren’t likely to go away, and a good candidate could capitalize on them, a la Charlie Brown with John Doolittle.

6) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 7.  Boxer number: 45.  The Inland Empire was one of the areas where they were out gathering signatures for the Dirty Tricks initiative, before it cratered, and Ken Calvert was quoted in the article:

Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, also favors the system, saying it could help improve the state’s dismal voter-turnout rates. He said presidential candidates from both parties, who have written off California as a lock for the Democrats, would have to campaign in Inland Southern California and across the state.

“They’d have to be here, and that would create excitement,” he said. “People would think their vote matters.”

We’ll see if Bill Hedrick can make any hay out of that next November.  In addition to Calvert’s dismal voting record and serious corruption issues.  Calvert was one of 5 US Congressmen on a junket to the CNMI where rumors of sex tourism abound (Dana Rohrabacher and John Doolittle were on this trip as well).

7) CA-52 (open seat) Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 44.  There are new candidates on the Democratic side in this San Diego-area race.  Former Special Forces regular JIm Hester and ex-Navy SEAL Mike Lumpkin are running.  Lumpkin seems to be keeping a busy schedule and generating a little press, both offline and in the blogosphere; Markos wrote enthusiastically about him.  I still think it’s going to be hard to beat the son of Duncan Hunter, and hard to criticize him while he’s serving in Afghanistan or possibly Iraq.

8) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 43.  Jerry Lewis has announced that he’s running for re-election again, so that puts the retirement rumors to rest. In addition, he’s managed to get the Justice Department drain the money swamp committed to investigating him:

The veteran prosecutor who’d been heading up the Lewis case has been forced into retirement, The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported yesterday (not available online). It knocks the investigation, already stalled, further off course.

Because of civil-service rules, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. attorney’s office who just recently took over the probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis must exit the office for good by the end of September, marking the third significant departure from the office’s corruption unit since Lewis first came under suspicion last year.

Michael Emmick, who first joined Los Angeles’s U.S. attorney’s office in 1982, has been serving under one-year appointments since 2004, after he triggered a contractual clause that will allow him to collect retirement benefits immediately upon leaving the office.

It’s highly unlikely that the Lewis investigation is going anywhere.  Furthermore, since Lewis will run again, it’s likely that Tim Prince, the likely challenger, won’t.  Worse, Louie Contreras, the candidate in 2006 who didn’t campaign at all past the primary, and may have been hand-picked by Lewis himself as a sock-puppet challenger, appears to be running again.

9) CA-03 (Lungren).  Last month: unranked.  Boxer number: 42.  In my preference to highlight races where there’s actually an announced candidate, I’m highlighting this one.  Dan Lungren is fairly entrenched as an incumbent, but 2006 challenger Bill Durston is running again.  Who knows?  Maybe the Charlie Brown magic will wear off on Durston and propel him to make a race out of it in this Republican district.  Here’s his website.

10) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  I’m breaking my “no candidate” rule because I want to see this potentially competitive district be challenged, and I do believe someone will eventually step up.  But more important than that, I wanted to mention that someone in Congress is named Miss Mary Mack.  Notably, Bono was the only California Republican to vote for SCHIP, which suggests that she knows she has to moderate her views in the district.

Special mention: Because it ought to be mentioned that Dana Rohrabacher thinks the premier of China wants to poison the President.  This guy is in Congress, by the way.

Rush doesn’t consider anyone who disagrees with him a real person, that’s been obvious for a while.  But I guess the fact that this comes so SOON after the whole MoveOn/BetrayUs thing strikes me as odd.  You’d think that whole deification of the military thing would kick in and prevent him from smearing men and women in uniform so soon.

Jon Soltz of VoteVets has a righteous post.  And Jerry McNerney really has his back up (this is from an email):

Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation’s uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that’s too far!

Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush’s show off the air?

KWSX in Stockton – (209) 551-1280
KSFO in San Francisco – (415) 954-7449
KFBK in Sacramento – (916) 929-5325

Hey, he’s consistent, right?  He voted to condemn the MoveOn ad.

I don’t want Rush’s show off the air.  I think free speech means accepting the speech you don’t like.  And this idea that anyone who’s ever served in the military is immune from the slightest criticism kind of makes me squirm.  None of this is to defend Rush, who obviously thinks that anyone who doesn’t serve the country in EXACTLY the way he sees fit is simply not genuine, and worthy of derision.  There’s a difference between MoveOn’s substantive, fact-based argument, and Limbaugh’s hatred of anyone who doesn’t think like him.  But you don’t ban it, and you don’t ignore it.  You HIGHLIGHT it.  And you make sure everyone knows about the vast emptiness within his soul.

UPDATE: Full context of Limbaugh’s remarks on the flip.

LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today?

LIMBAUGH: I’m fine sir, thank you.

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of — who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?

CALLER 1: I’m just — I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public — like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but —

LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can’t handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I’ve listened to you for a long time, and you’re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don’t think it’s winnable. And I’m not a Democrat, but I just — sometimes you’ve got to cut the losses.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you — you —

CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you’re wrong.

LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I’m not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have —

CALLER 1: Oh, I’m not saying that. I’m not saying anything like that, but, you know —

LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are.

CALLER 1: No, I’m not.

LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is — the truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country —

LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord.

[…]

CALLER 1: How long is it gonna — how long do you think we’re going to have to be there for them to take care of that?

LIMBAUGH: Mike —

CALLER 1: How long — you know — what is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike —

CALLER 1: What is it?

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are — you are —

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can’t be a Republican. You are —

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, ’cause you sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER 1: No, but —

LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question —

CALLER 1: — seriously, how long do we have to stay there —

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes!

CALLER 1: — to win it? How long?

LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious.

CALLER 1: And that is what?

LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long — just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever —

LIMBAUGH: I — it won’t —

CALLER 1: — because that’s what it’ll take.

LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike — I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER 1: See, I — I’ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah.

CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but —

LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know.

CALLER 1: — you know, really — I want you to be saying how long it’s gonna take.

LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!

CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?

LIMBAUGH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question. That’s not what you want to hear, so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull — what these people don’t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it’d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And —

LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —

LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —

CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

I’m guessing that at tonight’s Calitics’ Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house — wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.

Senate
Yea
Diane Feinstein

Nay
Barbara Boxer

House
Yea
Joe Baca (CA-43)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Tom Lantos (CA-12)
Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
Grace Napolitano (CA-38)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)

Nay
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Howard Berman (CA-28)
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Barbara Lee (CA-9)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
George Miller (CA-7)
Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
Brad Sherman (CA-27)
Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-33)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)

(Righting a bit of a wrong here. This should have been frontpaged when it first appeared; not everything is or should be about the day-to-day slugfest. – promoted by jsw)

For lack of a nail, the shoe was lost;
for lack of a shoe, the horse was lost;
for lack of a horse, the rider was lost;
for lack of a rider, the message was lost;
for lack of a message, the battle was lost;
for lack of a battle, the war was lost;
for lack of a war, the kingdom was lost.

Northern California Democrats have been hearing a lot lately about how the CDP is targeting two of our most important races, CA-11 and AD-15. Both of these districts have historically elected Republicans, with CA-11 holding a 5.5% Republican registration advantage and AD-15 recently dwindling to a 2% Republican advantage. Now that the AD-15 seat is turning over due to term limits, the CDP is hoping to pick up a new Democratic Assembly seat while protecting the sole Congressional gain that California Democrats made in 2006.

Unfortunately, the Democratic definition of “targeting” seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to catnapping. Take, for example, the City of San Ramon elections for mayor and City Council that were scheduled for this November.

As is true in most locales, San Ramon’s city offices are considered non-partisan. Yet in San Ramon, the mayor and the entire City Council are all Republicans, despite the fact that city-wide Democratic registration  stands at 9,988 compared to 10,589 Republicans, with a pool of 6,033 DTS voters.

So exactly what happened to San Ramon’s November 2007 election? Well, there’s not going to be an election. That’s because when the August 10 filing deadline rolled around, nobody had filed to run for mayor against the Republican incumbent; nobody had filed to run for City Council against the Republican incumbents. With nobody challenging them at the polls, the three incumbents were appointed to new terms on August 20.

So how does the lack of a nail lose the war?

Well, for starters, San Ramon’s incumbent mayor, H. Abram Wilson, is also running for the Republican nomination for AD-15. As the highest-ranking elected in the race, he has excellent name recognition and a sizable network of supporters, all of which led to him being considered by many as the early favorite in the Republican field. But his pesky mayoral race was widely viewed as a big negative, siphoning his time, money and energy away from the AD race. Would he be able to spend the bulk of 2007 running for mayor and then immediately jump into a heated AD race?

He addressed those questions head-on earlier this summer:

San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson has loaned his campaign $95,000. He has received $18,474 from other contributors.

Wilson described his loan as a pragmatic jump-start to his Assembly campaign, which he’s running concurrently with his re-election bid for mayor. San Ramon city elections will be held in November; the Assembly primary election is June 2008.

“People have asked me if I’m committed to the Assembly race because I am running for mayor and how could I do both,” Wilson said. “But when people see that you are willing to put your own funds in, they will see that you believe in yourself and you believe you can win.”

As of August 10, all of Wilson’s troubles vanished. Freed up from any work or expense in that mayoral race, he’s been able to focus exclusively on the AD-15 seat. That means that, three months ahead of schedule, all of his fundraising activities, along with all of his time and energy, are able to be fully deployed into the Assembly race, and the doubt that plagued his candidacy has been cast aside. Wilson’s position as the frontrunner seems stronger than ever.

And if Wilson wins the primary, he is clearly the most difficult of the Republican candidates for a Democrat to defeat. Genial, experienced, and very careful to present himself as a “moderate” Republican, Wilson’s presence on the November 2008 ballot would make the AD-15 seat that much more challenging for a Democrat to win.

But it’s not just AD-15 that’s impacted by the San Ramon race. As one of my readers pointed out, Jerry McNerney also has a dog in this hunt:

Why should building a farm team should be the responsibility of McNerney’s team?

He is the sole beneficiary. The farm team helps by eliminating officeholders down ballot that could be hostile and sling arrows at every opportunity they get. […]

Now I envision [Republican Congressional candidate Dean] Andal’s people using those GOP officeholders to close ranks and rally their base to take down McNerney, probably in direct mail to San Ramon and Danville voters, maybe not even use party affiliation, but just the fact that they are local office holders and they support Andal. It will be something like, “The entire City Council of San Ramon supports Dean Andal. Join us, as he shares our commitment to low taxes and economic growth” — or something like that.

So the Democrats’ inability to field a single candidate in San Ramon has serious consequences for a whole host of other races. And exactly who is to blame? Well, the list is long. As another of my readers pointed out, there was a fundamental failure at the local Democratic club and Central Committee level to get involved in the race and recruit candidates.

Likewise, with the CDP bragging loudly all year about how they were targeting AD-15 and CD-11, one might have imagined that, in addition to money, they would provide a little planning and a little effort on the ground. And, frankly, it just wasn’t that hard to look at the AD candidates, see Wilson as the strongest contender, and think, “Gee, maybe it would be good to throw up a few roadblocks to his campaign — like, you know, a competitor in his mayoral race.”

Then there’s Jerry McNerney, the Congressman who represents San Ramon. As the regional party leader, he had both the opportunity and the responsibility to recruit good candidates for the San Ramon races. And let’s face it, McNerney’s involvement in the race wouldn’t just have been an altruistic party-building mechanism; it would have come back to help him immeasurably — a classic win-win.

But instead, all of these Democrats complacently snoozed through the San Ramon city elections. So here we have, in this one race, a ripple that has the potential to be felt over a very large area. A contested race in San Ramon might have resulted in a Democratic counter-balance to the all-Republican San Ramon city government, might have helped build the Democratic base locally, might have helped develop a bench of Democratic officeholders, might have hampered the strongest Republican in his AD-15 primary race, and might even have shored up Jerry McNerney’s Congressional base. We’ll never know, though, because it didn’t happen.

This post is an amalgam of posts found here and here and here at The Progressive Connection.

I was intending to post a diary that contained all of the comments that Jerry had from the Firedoglake blog session on Friday, and then make some observations.

However, I realized halfway through that the formatting involved is not worth it, and in any case, you can read through McNerney’s comments quickly by just searching “McNerney says”. 

A few things that I had wanted to emphasize with his words:

Jerry’s refrain that he wants a withdrawal from Iraq to begin now and and end on a date certain is very loophole-sounding.  I believe he does want us out of Iraq, and doesn’t envision us there in three.  So why does he just want a date certain?  That could be 2010, that could be 2020.  He doesn’t have such a conflicted view on getting us out that he needs to use wishy-washy language such as this, does he?

Then, we get his statements about reasonable Republicans, and words like these which much credit where none is due:

I believe many R’s are very anxious to find some way to end this thing asap.

Every Democrat, especially in public, needs to stick to the line that unless you vote in Congress to end the war, then you’re not on board.  I would think a better response would be, “These comments from [Republican congressman] sound encouraging, but we’ll wait to see whether this translates into them actually voting in congress to make what they want happen – there will be opporunities for them to do so very soon”. 

Jerry’s comments help create a class of less-culpable Republicans on Iraq by allowing them to distance themselves from Bush in appearance but not in reality.  They never break with Bush, but they get good cred for sounding like in their heart of hearts they know the war’s wrong.

That’s why all the giddiness over John Warner saying some of the troops should be withdrawn is kind of silly — he’s not even saying he’ll vote with Democrats on actual bills which would accomplish something.