The primary election to replace Juanita Millender-McDonald is next Tuesday, June 26.  Both main campaigns, State Sen. Jenny Oropeza and Assemblywoman Laura Richardson, have released internal polls showing them in the lead; however, both polls are tight enough to make this a very close race.  Oropeza has about twice as much money for the final days.

There’s not much of an air war going on, but the mailers are fast and furious.  And Richardson continues to engage in not-so-subtle identity politics.

over…

A crowd of nearly 100 people heard State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D., Carson-LB), a polished public speaker with 19 years of elective experience, become audibly emotional, her voice at one point seemingly approaching tears, while retaining her composure to complete her closing statement in emphatic tones. To hear this, click here.

The Senator’s reaction came after fellow Democrat candidate George Parmer, Jr. (“I’m a truck driver, a working man, not a politician”) said that at a candidate forum a day earlier, someone [not a candidate] suggested that he and other less well funded candidates should drop out of the race in favor of a candidate who could win. Mr. Parmer interpreted this to mean defeating a Hispanic candidate [Sen. Oropeza] to benefit a Black candidate…which he likened to returning to the “road to segregation.” To hear his statement, click here.

Following Mr. Parmer and Senator Oropeza, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D., Carson-LB) delivered her closing statement, reiterating her stance that the Congressional seat held by the late Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald (D., Carson-LB) should be held by someone from “our community.” Assemblywoman Richardson indicated the phrase means someone with a working class background reflective of the district, along with the legislative experience to do the job. “I’m not speaking about race. I’m talking about respect,” Assemblywoman Richardson said. To hear this, click here.

I don’t know what the outcome will be, but progressive politics suffer when campaigns become a race about “respect” and identity and street cred.  And I sense this is all coming from one particular candidate.

I hope you guys appreciate me, because I managed to get through the entire 90-minute debate for the June 26 primary in the 37th Congressional District to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald held on Thursday night.  11 Democrats were on stage, and because they were all given 2 minute opening statements, the debate really didn’t cover much ground.  But actually, the fact that the moderator was a clueless local news anchor from LA’s ABC7 who had virtually no connection to the district was a good thing, as the persistent issues of race played out in the media in the campaign were fairly nonexistent in the debate.

Detailed two-day-late debateblogging on the flip…

Let’s take a look at each candidate’s opening statement:

Ed Wilson: former mayor of Signal Hill, a small city in the district.  He immediately went after the whole ethnicity issue, saying “this is not a black seat or a white seat or a Hispanic seat, it’s your seat.”

Peter Matthews: He’s the PDA-endorsed candidate who has run for office many times, including challenging Millender-McDonald in a primary in 2006 (and getting 10,000 votes).  Matthews is running on the progressive issues on getting us out of Iraq, closing the inequality divide, providing single-payer universal health care, and restoring tax fairness.

Jenny Oropeza: The state Senator was strong on the war, saying “we need to get out of Iraq now.”  She talked about the environment, health care, revising NCLB, and needing to “turn around trade agreements” that sacrifice American job (that was cheering).  She closed with “You know my record,” playing off her experience serving the area.

Laura Richardson: Assemblywoman Richardson is also running on her record.  She kind of messed up her move from talking about Iraq to domestic issues, saying “I want to talk about the war in America” and then claiming that Al Qaeda is running rampant (I think she meant in Waziristan, not Long Beach).  Didn’t seem like much of a public speaker.

Valerie McDonald: The late Congresswoman’s daughter talked about her ties to the area, the need to keep families together in the black community, and the importance of education.

Bill Grisolia: He’s a longtime employee of Long Beach Memorial Health Center, so universal health care was one of his themes.  But he was at his most powerful discussing the war in Iraq, and his desire to cut funding except to bring our troops home.  He also tried to blunt the experience argument by saying “What have the electeds done for you?”

Mr. Evans: I forget his first name and it doesn’t matter.  He’s a far-right immigrant-hating loon who somehow was let into the Democratic primary.  He proudly namechecked Lou Dobbs in the first sentence of his statement and called himself a closed-borders candidate.  There is a sense in the black community that immigrants are in competition with them for low-paying jobs, but this was the most extreme out-and-out black bigot I’ve seen.

Alicia Ford: Spent her entire statement talking about something she did a decade ago that ABC7 didn’t cover, which made her bad.  Also actually said “In Compton, they are without… a lot of things.”  Stirring.

Lee Davis: Her whole statement decried the front-runner assumptions of the media, and said that “if the top three had any self-respect they’d leave this stage right now” to allow for equal access, and then actually WAITED for them to leave the stage.  They, er, didn’t.

George Parmer: a truck driver from Long Beach, the first to actually call for impeachment and call out the Democratic leadership for their sell-out on capitulation in Iraq.

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

Albert Robles: a write-in candidate in a 17-candidate field.  Best of luck to you.  I mean, if you can’t get the papers in on time…

The first question was on Iraq, and pretty much the entire field is committed to getting out now, so on that big issue, there’s not a lot of daylight and everyone is on the right side.  Peter Matthews went so far as to suggest that there ought to be impeachment investigations into lying us into war, and announced his support for HR 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  The moderator actually did the “raise your hands” thing on the impeachment question, and I think 8 or 9 candidates raised their hands, including Jenny Oropeza (it was a wide shot on a postage stamp video window, so I could be wrong).  Mr. Evans, of course, kept calling the President the “commander-in-chief” and yelled at everybody for undermining him in a time of war.  I think there’s a place for him in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

On Iran, Jenny Oropeza has sadly bought into the bullshit rhetoric that they are a threat to our national security and that all options have to be on the table regarding their nuclear program.  She also said that she thinks diplomacy has failed because this President is incapable of it.  Only Alicia Ford understood that Iran is not an imminent threat, but then she went on about how China is a threat to this country and how in Compton they don’t have “things.”

Transportation and port security was a major topic, with the Port of Long Beach in the district.  Most candidates supported efforts to green the ports, including State Sen. Alan Loewenthal’s $30 container fee for clean air proposal.  Peter Matthews pressed the need for public transit to aid a cleaner environment.  Valerie McDonald was good on this issue as well.  George Parmer, the trucker, maintained that many truckers own their equipment and can’t afford to modernize their trucks, and so some of the funds from the container fee should trickle down to them.  I didn’t see much difference here.

A big topic was the events at MLK/Harbor Medical Center’s ER, which has been in the news lately, as a woman fell dead in the waiting room while the hospital staff did nothing.  Most of the candidates believed MLK/Harbor should remain open and would support the $200 million in federal funding that goes into it annually, though Ed Wilson and Valerie McDonald stressed accountability.  Laura Richardson said a platitude like “this situation must be dealt with” but didn’t explain how.  Peter Matthews mentioned that he organized a picket at MLK/Harbor 2 years ago and the only result was that they cut beds in half.  Bill Grisolia stressed the need for cooperation in the community, perhaps nurses college training partnerships to get more staff in there.  Many stressed the need for universal healthcare so that poor people aren’t relying on the ER as their last resort.

On a question about Wal-Mart, Oropeza proudly claimed that she fought against a Wal-Mart in Long Beach, and now there’s an Albertson’s there!  (Does she not read the news about the looming grocery strike and how Albertson’s in particular is trying to screw their workers again?)  The major candidates were in agreement on this, though only Valerie McDonald mentioned that workers ought to have the right to organize.  I take it she’d support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In final thoughts, Oropeza said she wouldn’t support the current immigration bill but didn’t say why, George Parmer advocated a national paper ballot because “votes are being stolen,” and Ed Wilson wanted to stop Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds.  Laura Richardson took a cheap shot when she mentioned some local shooting and claimed she was the only candidate there (what, if you run for Congress, you have to know where the shootings are?).

My impression is that the candidates, by and large, are fairly similar and fairly progressive, as befits the district.  Oropeza and Richardson are politicians who are playing some political games.  Oropeza doesn’t seem all that informed on a couple crucial issues, and Richardson is clearly running a “vote for me, I’m one of you” race.  I was impressed with Valerie McDonald and Bill Grisolia.  Peter Matthews certainly has all of his progressive chops down, and it will be interesting to see if he can leverage the grassroots energy in Southern California from PDA and translate it into votes.

I am back from maintaining radio silence for a few days.  And I bring you this internal poll from the Laura Richardson campaign showing her with a 9-point lead in her Congressional primary against Jenny Oropeza and 15 other candidates.  Richardson need only beat the other 10 Dems on the ballot to get into a runoff, where the Democrat will be very likely to win in this deep blue district.

Laura Richardson (D) 25%
Jenny Oropeza (D) 16%
Valerie McDonald (D) 7%
John M. Kanaley (R) 5%
Teri Ramirez (R) 2%
Ed Wilson (D) 2%
Other Democrats 4%
Other Republicans 2%
Minor Party Candidates 1%
Undecided 35%

That’s a heavy amount of undecideds, so this obviously isn’t over.  It does seem to be getting even more tense, as tempers flared between Richardson and Oropeza after a candidate forum last week.  Over..

Assemblywoman Richardson told the Compton forum:

Assemblywoman Richardson: I’m going to fight for our community…This is about someone who says that no one can take our seat from us without us fighting every bit of the way for it. [applause] This is our community. This is our seat. And let me tell you something: why is it that with redistricting, Compton was removed out of the 55th [Carson-LB Assembly district]? We need people who want Compton, who will represent Compton and who will do everything humanly possible to make sure all of the people in our community are represented and taken care of.

The order of closing speakers had Assemblywoman Richardson speaking after Sen. Oropeza…meaning Oropeza wasn’t able to respond on mike to Richardson’s closing. But following Assemblywoman Richardson’s closing, the two apparently had some words off-mike (inaudible to the audience) which began to careen into a verbal brouhaha until others intervened.

A few minutes later, the two Democrats declined to join hands for a collective photo. When the forum ended, Sen. Oropeza left the room without comment, her jaw set and her eyes focused on the door. Assemblywoman Richardson was surrounded by supporters.

The two will meet again with the other Democratic candidates at a debate on Thursday at Cabrillo High School in Long Beach.  Richardson appears to me to be using the rhetoric of “this race is not about ethnicity” while making the race entirely about ethnicity.  We’ll see if this continues Thursday night.

Leading up to the election last November, Chris Bowers initiated the Use It or Lose It project, urging unopposed members of Congress to contribute their money to the DCCC in support of other competitive races.  In addition, I found 64 more districts with token opposition (Republican had raised less than $10,000 total).  California’s districts, safely drawn as many of them are, were well represented on these two lists, and while many of California’s Democrats were very supportive, not all of them were.  Our representatives have a responsibility to support the party as a whole whenever possible, and sitting on piles of cash is both a waste and a betrayal of good faith.  Here’s a look at how the delegation performed so that we can start applying pressure where necessary.

Let’s begin with completely unchallenged Democrats from last cycle.  I’m not yet getting into what help these Democrats did or did not give the party or individual candidates (one thing at a time).  This is simply the raw numbers, but certainly a few things will jump out.

Unopposed (or unfunded Republican) and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-05 Doris Matsui  $78,466
CA-07 George Miller  $176,990
CA-12 Tom Lantos  $1,367,651
CA-14 Anna Eshoo  $341,669
CA-16 Zoe Lofgren  $147,670
CA-17 Sam Farr  $112,511
CA-20 Jim Costa  $205,014
CA-28 Howard Berman  $407,149
CA-29 Adam Schiff  $1,376,605
CA-31 Xavier Becerra  $448,286
CA-32 Hilda Solis  $143,566
CA-33 Diane Watson  $2,488
CA-34 Lucille Roybal-Allard  $38,943
CA-35 Maxine Waters  $101,768
CA-37 Juanita Millender-McDonald  N/A

Total: $4,948,776

So obviously, not all of these people are being miserly.  Diane Watson, for example, isn’t exactly going home to swim in money or anything.  There’s no way of knowing whether any of these districts will face a serious challenge in 2008, but with the exception of Jim Costa in CA-20, all of these districts have a PVI of D+12 or more and thus aren’t particularly vulnerable.  That means that the money is legitimately in play.  Some of these folks get it, some (Ahem Tom Lantos? Adam Schiff?) seem not to.

In addition to the above, there are several more California Democrats who faced only token opposition.  For our purposes here, I’m drawing a different (though still arbitrary) line at $25,000 in total money raised to establish “token” status.  Without a doubt, it’s tough to run a serious campaign in this state with $26,000, but I think the bar is low enough so as to not be debatable.

Token Republican Opposition and Cash on Hand (12/31/06):

CA-06 Lynn Woolsey  $24,531
CA-10 Ellen Tauscher  $211,924
CA-30 Henry Waxman  $652,596
CA-36 Jane Harman  $225,448
CA-38 Grace Napolitano  $194,155
CA-43 Joe Baca  $7,044
CA-51 Bob Filner  $6,369

Total: $1,322,067

Again offered without comment on extenuating circumstances (particularly with respect to primary challenges).  Again, not everyone has a deathgrip on the cash here.  Woolsey, Baca and Filner are clearly spending what they’ve got.  It’s important though that we make sure this commitment keeps up.  And again, there’s no way of knowing this far out where we’ll see a well-funded challenge, but Filner and Tauscher are the only ones on this list who represent districts with PVIs of single-digit Dem leanings, which means these folks for the most part don’t need to be worried about a tough Republican challenge.  Henry Waxman for example, and God bless his legislative ass-kicking, really doesn’t need that money to keep himself in office.  Spend it through the DCCC, spend it on local infrastructure, but don’t just let it rot.

This cannot be a last-minute project like last year.  We have to work towards creating a culture of support for the party whenever possible.  And if we have representatives who don’t feel that the country is better off with more Democrats in office, we need to know that sooner than later.  Last year, Marty Meehan (MA-05) sat on more than $5 million and then, when he wasn’t going to be able to run for Senate, took the money and went home.  We won’t miss him, but that money really might’ve helped, say, Larry Kissell or Charlie Brown.  This is what we’re trying to avoid.

This is not meant to be a one-way street.  Those who are not in need should pay in as much as possible, and those who are in need should take out as much as needed.  But it only works when the caucus buys into the idea that the financial health of the party is more important than the financial health of the individual.  Working together will be much more effective over the long haul than working as individuals, and it’s important to convey that message to our representatives.  So as you watch fundraising progress, and as you have opportunities to talk with your representatives, think about and ask about the degree to which they’re supporting the party as opposed to their own bank accounts.  House Dems are kicking some serious ass so far in 2007, which is great.  Let’s make sure that the DCCC gets the extra support from our Representatives that it deserves.

Surprisingly enough, considering it’s 17 months out, there’s actually been some measure of news in the California delegation, most of it pretty good for Democrats.  Let’s take a look at the top pickup opportunities for Democrats, as well as the top hold races.  We’ll start with the seats that may be contested (there are only two):

1) CA-37: Not technically a contested seat, but this is the open seat vacated by the late Juanita Millender-McDonald, which will have an open primary on June 26 and a general election (if nobody gets 50%) a couple months thereafter.  There are debates this week (Friday) and next (June 14), but so far this has been a battle of endorsements.  The CA Democratic Party and the League of Conservation Voters have backed State Senator Jenny Oropeza; the Legislative Black Caucus and the CA Federation of Labor of LA County have backed Assemblywoman Laura Richardson.  I do believe that Richardson’s endorsements probably mean more on the ground; of course, there’s also Millender-McDonald’s daughter, Valerie McDonald, who some believe will “split the black vote” and hand the primary to Oropeza.  This is a very safe Democratic seat, so the winner of the primary on the Democratic side is all but assured to be the next Congressman.

2) CA-11 (McNerney): Antiwar advocates were pleased with Rep. McNerney’s vote on the Iraq funding bill.  Former Assemblyman Dean Andal has announced that he’ll run for the seat.  Obviously, the first re-elect is the toughest, so McNerney will have a fight on his hands here, whether against Andal or somebody else.  However, I don’t think that attacking McNerney by attacking Nancy Pelosi, which the NRCC has done in recent radio ads, is going to work, considering the Speaker is more popular than Bush as well as previous House Speakers like Newt Gingrich.

Pickup chances over on the flip…

OK, on to the Republicans.  I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I’m also adding the “Boxer number,” an excellent system for measuring districts given to me by a reader whose name escapes me.  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.

1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  John Doolittle’s stayed out of the courthouse thus far, but he’s clearly damaged goods and the GOP knows it.  A number of prominent Republicans have made waves about challenging Doolittle in the primary, including Air Force reservist Eric Egland, a former Doolittle supporter.  Schwarzenegger flack and former Bush-Cheney campaign guy Steve Schmidt apparently has his support.  In the article, he calls Charlie Brown a “Cindy Sheehan Democrat,” which is ludicrous on several levels, but undeniably more effective in that reliably Republican district than we may think.  Doolittle believes that he still has majority support, but then again he thinks rogue Democrats in the Justice Department are conspiring against him.  Charlie Brown still has a better chance against Doolittle than a fresh face.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  Not much new to report here.  David Dreier is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and his name comes up on occasion, but he’s been pretty mum about his low fundraising totals.  Like almost all Republicans, he voted to fund Bush’s war, saying “We cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made.”  I would think a decent campaign could make some hay out of that remark.  Declared Democratic opponent Russ Warner has sent out fundraising letters, but hasn’t been incredibly visible at this early stage.

3) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 9.  Boxer number: 43.  Obviously, the big story is Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s leak (he’s used to those) that Jerry Lewis won’t seek re-election, which would make this an open seat.  Of course, it would still lean to the GOP in this fairly red district, but an open seat will at least give Democrats the opportunity to find a candidate and force the other side to put in some resources.  Lewis’ people have denied the report that he’s retiring.  I previously speculated that Lewis may be wanting out of the Congress to defend himself in a long-dormant corruption investigation, now that the hiring of a new US Attorney for Los Angeles, a fiercely independent former DA, is imminent.  We’re still waiting for attorney Tim Prince to jump into this race.

4) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 4.  Boxer number: 47.  Novak also mentioned Elton Gallegly in his report:

District 24: Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) decided to retire last cycle for health reasons, only to change his mind at the last minute and run. California Republicans continue to wonder what his ’08 plans will be. The congressman may not be sure himself.

Gallegly’s probably safe if he runs, but nobody really knows what will happen.  An open seat means a pretty good pickup opportunity relative to the others.

5) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 48.  What surprised me was that the Boxer number was so high in a district everyone calls “hard right.”  Brian Bilbray has been demagoguing the immigration issue of late, which for all I know works in this district.  Michael Wray, the former Francine Busby staffer who looks to be running here, hasn’t been very visible this month.

6) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 41.  As reported at Trash Dirty Gary, Miller has tried to shift the blame for his ethical troubles by blaming the cities and counties he represents, in a roundabout way.  This tactic was blasted in an op-ed by the Daily Bulletin.

Caught in the fallout from recommending legislation two years ago that would advance the projects of a major campaign contributor, Rep. Gary Miller now says he plans to tighten the process.

Only instead of dealing directly with that issue, the Brea Republican is going to start requiring that all cities and counties that seek federal aid from his office certify that the request will benefit the community, and not a specific individual, organization or business entity.

That’s good. We would hope that government agencies making appropriations requests would be doing so on behalf of public constituents.

But Miller’s attempt to turn things around by putting the certifiction burden on cities and counties seems like political subterfuge, at best.

People are on to this guy.  Now there just needs to be a dynamic candidate who can breathe some life into the Democratic organizations in that district and force Miller to play defense.  Stay tuned…

7) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  Mary Bono continues to focus on tangential issues while voting in lockstep with the Republican leadership.  The Boxer number here suggests that there’s an opportunity if there’s a good candidate.  None has yet materialized.

8) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 45.  Ken Calvert got some negative publicity when he took over for John Doolittle on the House Appropriations Committee, despite his own corruption issues.  Conservative blog RedState vowed to wage war on him, but that hasn’t seemed to go anywhere.  So we’ll see if this gains any traction.

9) CA-25 (McKeon).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 45.  Not much to report here at all.  If Buck McKeon runs again, he’s very likely to win.

10) CA-52 (open seat).  Last month: 7.  Boxer number: 44.  Despite it being an open seat, I don’t expect to see anyone beat Duncan Hunter’s son while he’s serving in Iraq.  He might not actually live in the district (scroll down and you see that Hunter for President press releases describe his son as living in Boise, Idaho), but that hasn’t stopped anyone else, like Brian Bilbray, from winning.

My theory that two pickups would be nice, and three great, still stands.

As usual, if you think I’ve got something wrong or am missing information, enlighten me in the comments.