Two more Democratic challengers have outraised their incumbent opponents in the second quarter.  That doesn’t happen very often, and it’s not supposed to in the supposedly impenetrably gerrymandered state of California.  But as I’ve been saying, this is a different year.

In CA-50, I’ve been informed that Nick Leibham outraised Brian Bilbray by $245K-$210K in the second quarter.  From the release:

Challenger Nick Leibham raised more money than Congressman Brian Bilbray in this fundraising quarter, according to FEC reports.  Leibham raised $245,504 while Bilbray managed $210,315.  The quarter spanned from April 1, 2008-June 31, 2008.

“Any time that you out raise an incumbent, especially someone like Brian Bilbray who has taken over $180,000 in campaign contributions from Big Oil, it gives the campaign a huge amount of momentum,” said Leibham.  “This is the clearest sign yet that the voters of the 50th are ready for change and I’m honored that so many of them are willing to contribute to our effort.”

Leibham has $266K cash on hand, compared to $528K for Bilbray.

In CA-46, there is similarly good news about Debbie Cook so I’ll let it speak for itself:

Debbie Cook Raises More Than Rohrabacher For The Second Straight Quarter

Democratic Congressional nominee Debbie Cook announced today that she raised more campaign funds than Dana Rohrabacher in the latest reporting period, making it the second quarter in a row she’s out-raised the nine-term incumbent.

Cook, the Mayor of Huntington Beach, out-raised Rohrabacher by more than $10,000. Cook raised $92,900 to Rohrabacher’s $78,712.

Cook has $97K CoH.  70% of her donors are local, meaning she has grassroots support AND that she has limitless potential if she can tap into netroots energy and build a national fundraising base.  She will be appearing at Netroots Nation.

Both of these are, in some respect, a reflection of two lazy incumbents.  Bilbray and particularly Rohrabacher aren’t paying any attention to fundraising.  But there’s not going to be any NRCC money forthcoming if these two get in trouble.  There’s not going to be any expansion of their donor base.  So while both have cash reserves (Bilbray has about $528K CoH, Rohrabacher has $387K), they aren’t overwhelming, and both Leibham and Cook ought to be somewhat competitive financially.

This is nothing like CA-26, where David Dreier has $1.9 million in the bank.  (Russ Warner’s numbers aren’t out yet.)

More numbers:

CA-45: Bornstein raised a little over $96,000, has $121K CoH.  No numbers for Mary Bono yet.

CA-03: Bill Durston raised around $125K, has $188K CoH.  Nice haul for him.  Dan Lungren raised $173K, has $615K CoH.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin raised $128K but only has $53K CoH.

UPDATE: Russ Warner’s numbers have come through.

CA-26: Warner raised $162K in Q2, $125K CoH (with $73,000 in debts; ouch.); Dreier raised $277K in Q2, $1.9million CoH, no debts.

That’s what I’d call an uphill battle.

(originally posted at Daily Kos)

In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  But so far, it’s been all over the map.  I’ve tried to corral all their statements into my diary on Daily Kos, so you can see who the “good guys” are.

First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill.  They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.

Below the fold, I’ve modified the original diary to list just the California Democratic challengers running who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.

Update: Found a relevant passage from Bill Hedrick’s website.

Update II: Bill Durston responds!  (see comments)

Now, not all of these statements were made this past week.  Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air.  But hey, they’re on record.  So here goes, alphabetically by district.  If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.

House candidates

CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)

I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn.  Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.”  We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.

In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.

….

But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.

….

And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.

And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.

CA-26: Russ Warner

Going back to FISA, we need to protect our Constitutional rights while keeping the American people safe. These are not mutually exclusive.

Russ Warner: FISA expansion of power so Bush can spy on Americans without warrants (with acquiescence of Congress): Yay or nay?

Nay.

CA-44: Bill Hedrick

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.

We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.

In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.  These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.

Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?

No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.

CA-46: Debbie Cook

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.

Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.

You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.

CA-48: Steve Young

We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects —  unless you believe that you and I are terrorists.  I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans.   On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.  Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.

George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations.  Does that comfort you?  Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American.  Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.

I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws.  No one is above the law.  If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American.   Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.

When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal.  We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.

CA-50: Nick Leibham

What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it.  The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period.  There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.

As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works.  You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin

FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.

As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.

Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue.  Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.

CA-03: Bill Durston (see update)

CA-24: Marta Jorgensen

CA-41: Tim Prince

CA-42: Ed Chau

CA-45: Julie Borenstein

Did I forget anyone?

We’ve known for years now that Brian Bilbray doesn’t actually live in the 50th district. It’s a given, it’s ridiculous, and it should be an embarrassment. But apparently his contempt for the district doesn’t end there.

After Democratic challenger Nick Leibham challenged Bilbray to a series of debates, Bilbray’s campaign responded with an insistence on radio and TV debates only, with a preference for radio. Why? Because “radio debates would enable Bilbray to participate from Washington.”

That’s right. Bilbray won’t even come to the district to campaign for re-election. He’s too busy voting the failed GOP party line nearly 92% of the time to swing through the district he claims to represent and engage in a debate of the issues. Just to see if perhaps he had alternate in-district plans, I swung by his re-election website. The Event page is a veritable beehive of activity, reading (in its entirety) “For questions call 619-234-0231”

We already know that Bilbray is ashamed of his record in Washington, but it’s still amazing that it’s so difficult to get him to even show his face in the district.

The Leibham campaign has just wrapped up their week-long series of events honoring Memorial Day, which they called "Bring Our Troops Home Week." A summary of all the events is below the fold. It was my pleasure to join them for the highlight of the week, visiting patients at the VA hospital in La Jolla and delivering gift baskets.

The group was assigned to the spinal cord injury unit. Most of the patients were from the first Gulf War or Vietnam; La Jolla VA is a center of excellence for spinal cord injuries, so they were from all across the western states–Nevada, Colorado, Arizona to name a few. They travel to the La Jolla VA annually for 3-4 days filled with tests and evaluations. The medical care was universally praised. The food, not so much. 🙂 One woman said she ordered her meals delivered from a variety of local restaurants! And many were especially grateful for the fudge included in Nick’s gift baskets.

Visitors are prohibited from campaigning, and the group was meticulous about observing these rules. But many patients eagerly broached the topic of politics on their own, sharing their anti-Bush sentiments. Of those who said anything, anti-Bush feelings were unanimous. Most of the time it came up in off-hand jokes/mocking/derision. The most heart-breaking was a veteran of the first Gulf War, a mother whose son is now in the military. She said she didn’t mind being deployed since it was her duty, but watching her son was too much for her. She choked up while expressing her hope for a new president with a new direction. Nick’s volunteer’s response was simply, “A lot of people are working really hard to make that happen.” Amen.

Although seeing paralyzed young guys back from Iraq was as every bit as harrowing as you would imagine it to be, it was–unexpectedly–seeing the aging veterans that hardened my resolve more than ever to get us out of Iraq. Seeing so many who weren’t really that old, but whose bodies were deteriorating in a thousand ways, well beyond their age, I began to realize how the subtler, more invisible damage of war can accumulate. A Vietnam veteran who escorted the group said that service[wo]men who have seen and survived combat still have 10-20 years shorter life expectancy than their civilian contemporaries. We have all heard how damaging stress is for the body–but seeing the evidence a few years down the road, and seeing it so starkly and visually…I have no words.

Nick spent a full hour and a half at the hospital. It was touching to see an emotion that maybe can best be described as resolve on his face during the visit. Now let me say that having spent several years as a twice-weekly volunteer at an emergency family housing shelter, we regulars developed a (admittedly somewhat elitist) contempt for the one-time feel-good volunteers. What bugged wasn’t that it was one-time–we all have different priorities–but the uncomfortable this is ickier than what I expected expression on the faces of so many. So bravo to Nick and co., who walked right in with confidence, real warmth and a sense of humor (and no icky expressions). Even for those with unusual abundance of tact and warm hearts, carrying on a normal chat with someone laying down and hooked up to various hospital machines is not easy. Double the difficulty when the war is so emotionally-charged. And–speaking just for myself here–triple the difficulty when there’s a whole foreign language going on between the veterans, having to do with their division, rank, assignments, specialties, friendly rivalries, and so on, that I’m largely clueless about. Nick has evidently spent enough time on military issues to be more fluent in this culture than I am.

Leibham’s Memorial Day/Bring Our Troops Home Week events:

• Monday: Nick will attend the Allied Veterans Council Annual Memorial Day ceremony in Escondido and the City of Solana Beach and VFW ceremony at the Veterans Memorial at La Colonia Community Park.
• Tuesday: Nick will release a statement condemning Bilbray’s recent vote against the G.I. Bill and our Veterans.
• Wednesday:  Nick and volunteers assemble care baskets for Iraq veterans at the VA Hospital.
• Thursday: Accompanied by members of Veterans for Peace and American Combat Veterans, Nick will personally deliver the care baskets to Veterans of the War in Iraq at the V.A. Medical Center in La Jolla.
• Friday: Nick will release a two-page statement on the War in Iraq emphasizing his commitment to a timetable to bring our troops home by 2009.

One thing I’d like to highlight is Leibham’s statement on Bilbray’s vote against the 2008 G.I. Bill. It is shameful that Bilbray and other Republicans would still walk lock-step with Bush on this war. But if they insist on doing so, the least they can do is also take the best possible care of our veterans. Bilbray voted against the 2008 G.I. Bill, which would allow our troops to attend college. He had the nerve to do this just a couple weeks before Memorial Day. I really can’t explain it–I don’t think Republicans realize how much trouble they will be in this Fall.

UPDATE: Now available in orange, please give it a rec.

(Full disclosure: I am connected with the Leibham campaign in that I signed up to be on their volunteer list. As it turns out, I've been too busy and/or lazy to actually ever do any volunteering. I support vigorous primary seasons. If you must know, on June 3rd, I'll be voting for Leibham.)

The Leibham campaign (CA-50) has come out with an extended biographical ad that is now available on Youtube. Really worth checking out. Even having followed the campaign pretty closely, I got a new appreciation for what Nick brings to the table from the ad. Leibham is the son of a Vietnam veteran and his resume includes teacher and prosecutor. Leibham does a nice job of not only mentioning these resume highlights, but explaining how they translate into his political philosophy and what he would do for people in our district.  

Bonus–it has some nice photos of our district. I live really close to those beautiful Carlsbad flower fields!

Continuing with Dave’s election theme from earlier, the first numbers that I’ve seen on general election matchups in CA-50 arrived in my inbox earlier today.  They’re from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and were commissioned by the Nick Leibham campaign.  They run the gamut from the district as a whole to specific matchups, but let’s not lose focus on the contested Democratic primary being settled on June 3 between Leibham and Cheryl Ede.  However, many of these numbers have more to do with Bilbray, the district, and it being a bad year to be a Republican.

Congressional generic:

Democrat: 43%

Republican: 39%

Other/DK: 17%

If nothing else, it’s an indicator that the district is open to a Democrat. Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Bilbray’s re-elect is at an uninspiring 42%.

Definitely re-elect: 15%

Probably re-elect: 27%

Probably vote for someone else: 18%

Definitely vote for someone else: 21%

Other/DK: 20%

42 is not a good number, especially at this point. While there are some who will come home to the GOP eventually, that’s a lot of persuadable voters and a lot of people who aren’t too impressed with Bilbray.

Since this was a Leibham poll, they obviously polled the general matchup, which I suppose helps feed fundraising and a “I’m the one who can win” primary frame. Initial numbers came out:

Bilbray: 52%

Leibham: 34%

Undecided: 13%

So plenty of ground to make up, but a district that’s open to someone who’s not a nutjob like Brian Bilbray. It was neck and neck after a bio read, but I don’t put a lot of stock in bio read numbers for predicative purposes: The bio doesn’t matter until people know it. Once they know it, the shift will show in the base numbers.

But this far out, this is looking like a race that can and should be competitive for the eventual Democratic nominee.  Bilbray has staked his claim on being even crazier than George Bush and John McCain.  If that’s what he wants to be judged on, then let’s give him a run for it.

Getting this one in under the wire.  On the last day of April, with just over a month to go until the June primaries, and six months to go until Election Day, there’s a lot going on all over the state in the Congressional races.  Of the 19 seats in California currently held by Republicans, 17 will be contested in the fall, and some strongly so.  And we now have a full 34 Democrats with the election of Jackie Speier early in the month, and only one of them is a serious challenge.  We also have the first quarter of 2008 fundraising numbers, which will raise some eyebrows.  You can track these races yourself with the 2008 Race Tracker wiki.

A note: I’m mainly getting my numbers on cash-on-hand competitiveness from the Swing State Project.  Fundraising information comes from the FEC.

Here we go…

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Main challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  Well, we’re seeing today the San Jose Mercury News reporting that this race is a “pure tossup.”  I don’t know where they’re getting that from.  There’s no question it’ll be competitive, but I look at the metric of fundraising in the first quarter, and I see that Andal, who is supposed to be the number one challenger for Republicans this cycle, couldn’t manage to raise more than $90,000.  That’s not really the numbers of a formidable opponent.  He trails McNerney in cash-on-hand by a 2-1 margin and will need significant outside expenditure support to win.  He’s getting some of that, but the DCCC isn’t abandoning McNerney either, already putting together their Radical Andal site, designed to paint the challenger as an extremist in the pocket of corporate lobbyists.  I’m sure they’ll bring up these ties to Don Young’s PAC, arguably the most corrupt member of Congress there is.  Both sides are headed door to door in the district, and McNerney is picking up a nice issue with the “Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act of 2008.”  The district is turning quite blue, and I like McNerney’s chances to hold the seat.

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do three tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challengers: Doug Ose, Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Charlie Brown is the John McCain of this Congressional cycle.  He’s sitting back and reaching voters while his opponents bruise and batter each other.  The differences are that Brown is a better candidate and he has a bigger money advantage.  But he must be sitting back and laughing right now.  Doug Ose has gone after Tom McClintock drawing welfare from the state of California in the form of per diem payments.  McClintock called Ose a liberal Democrat.  Most of the headlines in the race have headlines like McClintock, Ose Attack Each Other.  Neither of them are from the district – McClintock won’t even be able to vote for himself in the primary – and in the meantime, lifelong resident Charlie Brown is making things happen.  He’s mobilizing volunteers in district offices.  He’s continuing to donate campaign funds to groups that provide support from veterans.  And he’s drawing on important support, like this message from area veterans.

Last week, something unprecedented in our country’s history happened here in Roseville. While politicians in both parties used the Iraq War Anniversary for pontificating and armchair quarterbacking, a local candidate for office (himself a 26-year vet with a son going back for his fifth rotation in Iraq) made good on a pledge to donate 5% of money raised in his congressional campaign to non profit organizations helping veterans and families in need. He gave away $17,500 last Thursday – just a down payment […]

As veterans, we would hope that the voters of District Four understand that tough talk by career politicians usually masks the coward within. Ose and McClintock are birds of a feather, flocking together.

We are soldiers. We believe in keeping promises. We believe in leading by example. We believe that patriotism trumps partisanship, action speaks louder than words, and we know, first hand what it takes to defend America. And for all of these reasons and more, we are proudly supporting Retired Lt. Col. Charlie Brown for Congress.

Powerful stuff.  And another reason you shouldn’t believe the hype that this district is hopeless – Charlie Brown is ready to win.

2. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  On the financial front, Warner came close to raising as much as Dreier in the 1st quarter ($136,000 to $110,000), but Dreier still has a big well of cash to draw from.  So the key for Warner is to find and exploit areas of weakness.  One of them is health care.  Warner vowed to forego the Congressional health care package until his constituents are fully covered – a very smart tactic that forces Dreier to confront the issue.  He also used the anxiety around the housing crisis to note that Dreier took $12,000 in contributions from members of Countrywide Financial while voting against aid for homeowners.  This is particularly salient given that Countrywide was basically looking past lying on applications in order to drive people who couldn’t afford it into risky loans.  For his part, Dreier is trying to pin high gas prices on Democrats, when he’s voted time and again against reining in record oil company profits and removing their subsidies.  Warner is running a pretty smart campaign thus far, and clearly Dreier knows he’s in for a fight.

3. CA-50.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challengers: Nick Leibham, Cheryl Ede.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  I like Nick Leibham’s motto at the top of his website: “I am running for Congress because I want to be proud of my government again.”  Local op-ed columnists think he might indeed have reason to be proud come November – Logan Jenkins think the race isn’t separated by more than a few points.  Leibham had decent fundraising in Q1 and is only a couple hundred thousand dollars behind Brian Bilbray in cash-on-hand.  We know that Bilbray will try to make this a single-issue race on immigration and I say let him.  It’s getting him headlines in the district like Bilbray strikes out on the Constitution.  Cheryl Ede is running a strong grassroots campaign and endorsed the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq.  If there’s one beef I have with Leibham it’s an unwillingness to be bold and run his campaign on contrasting policies.  Hopefully he’ll learn this lesson.

Second Tier

4. CA-45.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challengers: Paul Clay, David Hunsicker, Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  Julie Bornstein, former Assemblywoman and affordable housing expert, got into this campaign late but she was still able to raise around $30,000 in a matter of weeks.  Add to that some money from prior election accounts and she’s already within a couple hundred thousand dollars in cash on hand of Mary Bono Mack, whose fundraising has been anemic this year.  I don’t think she’s taking this race seriously, but Bornstein is rounding up all the key endorsements, from the Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the CDP, labor, et al., and she’s going to run a strong race.  She does need a website – if she has one, I can’t find it (UPDATE: via soyinkafan in comments, here it is!).  Paul Clay and David Hunsicker are also running.

5. CA-03.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  It should have raised eyebrows throughout the country when Fourthbranch Dick Cheney came out from his undisclosed location to appear at a fundraiser for Dan Lungren.  Cheney doesn’t visit districts where the Democrat doesn’t have a shot, and this was WAY early for someone in Washington to be sounding the alarm button.  Maybe they noticed that Lungren only raised around $100,000 in the first quarter, nearly matched by Bill Durston’s $75,000.  Durston was quick to respond to the Cheney fundraiser, too.

Dr. Bill Durston, Lungren’s Democratic opponent for House of Representatives in California’s 3rd Congressional District, states, “The fact that Dan Lungren would have Dick Cheney as his special honored guest at a fundraiser is one more demonstration of the fact that Lungren is in virtual lock step with the Bush/Cheney Administration.”

It’s the old Cheney/Bush double bind; they help raise money, but most voters don’t want to see you and Darth Cheney or W. in the same room.  With more favorable numbers headed Durston’s way, this race continues to get more and more competitive.

6. CA-46.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  This is amazing.  Debbie Cook outraised Dana Rohrabacher in the first quarter of 2008.  Cook didn’t even enter the race until mid-January, and yet she won the fundraising battle.  Either Rohrabacher isn’t paying attention or people are tired of his act.  And the cash-poor NRCC isn’t going to be able to pull these candidates out of the fire anymore.  Debbie Cook is opening her first campaign office in Huntington Beach this coming weekend, and she’s going to run a strong race about energy, global warming and the environment.  We’ll see if Rohrabacher can keep up.  It was notable that Rohrabacher attacked the cost of the war in Iraq during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings.  He knows he’s vulnerable.

Third Tier

7. CA-42.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challengers: Ron Shepston (Responsible Plan Endorser), Ed Chau, Michael Williamson.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0.  Disclosure: I do some netroots work for Ron Shepston.  Another amazing number – Ed Chau outraised Gary Miller in Q1.  The numbers are paltry – $39,000 to $36,000 – but it suggests that Miller doesn’t care, isn’t paying attention, or can’t find anyone to give his corrupt ass a buck.  Add all the Democratic challengers up together and Democrats outraised Republicans significantly out here.  And the primary should be interesting.  Ed Chau got labor endorsements but most of his work has been fairly under-the-radar.  Ron Shepston’s grassroots efforts may be able to pull the primary out, and he is starting to raise money.  Shepston has Ambassador Joe Wilson coming out for a fundraiser next month.  Michael Williamson has been quiet other than this attack Web ad hitting Ed Chau for not living in the district.    Gary Miller actually backed Barney Frank’s housing bill, which suggests that the mortgage mess is a REAL problem in the district.  Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg attacked Miller for trying to hide the extent of the mess from the public.

8. CA-52.  Last month: 7.  Open seat.  Repub. challengers: several, including Duncan D. Hunter.  Dem. challengers: Mike Lumpkin, Vicki Butcher.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Mike Lumpkin has Max Cleland coming in for a fundraiser with him this week, and he raised a decent amount of money last quarter.  Here’s an overview of the race; Lumpkin apparently endorsed removing “half the troops” from Iraq, which seems to me to be a silly idea, but his background as a Navy SEAL and liaison between Congress and the Special Ops Command gives him at least some facility with the region.  This is a tough seat, especially going against what amounts to a legacy candidate.  And Hunter has a lot more money.  Vicki Butcher is a grassroots-oriented candidate who will get her share of votes in the primary.  There was actually a candidate forum in this race yesterday.  Any reports out there?

9. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challengers: Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6.  Marta Jorgensen has quit the race and backed Jill Martinez.  Unfortunately, the primary fight here has turned a little nasty, with Jill Martinez stretching the truth about Mary Pallant’s positions and her own finances.  Neither candidate raised a lot of money last quarter but Martinez claimed she had, despite her bank account being in the red.  Pallant is working the progressive grassroots to win the nomination, winning the endorsements of Democrats.com’s David Swanson and author Norman Solomon.  I’d love to see a true progressive take on Elton Gallegly.  He wants to drill in ANWR.  He’s not that bright.

10. CA-41.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challengers: Tim Prince, Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Jerry Lewis has become the point man on forcing retroactive immunity for the telecom companies back into the House for a vote.  In his speech he assailed trial lawyers for wanting to sue the phone companies, which is funny because at a million dollars his legal defense fund has put several trial lawyers’ kids through college.  Of bigger note here is that Republicans in San Bernardino County now number under 40% and Democrats are within 8,000 voters of retaining the majority.  The district is changing, and we’ll see if Tim Prince or Rita Ramirez-Dean can capitalize.  I do like Rita’s website and use of Web video.

11. CA-44.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick endorsed the Repsonsible Plan this month, which certainly helps raise his profile a bit.  He’s holding fundraisers and trying to make voters aware of his presence headed into the general election.  Ken Calvert is gearing up for re-election by requesting all kinds of porkbarrel projects.

12. CA-25.  Last month: 12.  Incumbent: Buck McKeon.  Challenger: Jacquese Conaway.  PVI #: R+7.  % Dem. turnout: 50.9%.  I threw this in because this is yet another seat where Democratic turnout outpaced Republican turnout in February.  This seat also includes a portion of San Bernardino County (see CA-41).  McKeon has a substantial money advantage.  He, by the way, “wants the victory” in Iraq.  That must be nice, thinking about foreign policy like it’s an NBA playoff game.

13. CA-48.  Last month: 13.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  I’ll keep including this race because I really like Steve Young.

Cheryl Ede, a Congressional candidate in CA-50 (Bilbray), just informed me that she has signed on to endorse the Responsible Plan.  This is the third Congressional candidate in California to endorse the plan, joining Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Debbie Cook (CA-46).  By the end of the weekend I expect several more.

It’s time for Nick Leibham to sign on as well.  This is a intelligent and important set of policies that will create a legitimate mandate to end this war, not a vague nod toward a “new direction” in Iraq.  Plus, it will seek to repair the broken institutions that led us into this disaster in the first place.  The candidates that have signed on nationwide seek to represent some of the reddest districts in the country, some of the bluest, and everything in between.  There is no reason for a candidate who wants to best represent the Democratic Party not to sign on.

Welcome back to the California House races roundup for March.  The races are coming into focus, with new challengers entering the fray before the March 7 deadline, and some actual campaigning between candidates (shocking!).  And with the DCCC looking at four races in the state, California will certainly be a battleground in Congress in November.  

We also know with a fair degree of certainty that Jackie Speier will be the next Representative in CA-12, after Lawrence Lessig declined to run.  The initial primary is April 8 and Speier is heavily favored.

So that leaves just one Democratic seat in any degree of question, and I’ve decided to expand to write about 13 Republican-held seats that have varying degrees of challenges.  Overall, Democrats are running in 18 of the 19 seats currently held by Republicans, and 52 of 53 seats overall.  Only Kevin McCarthy in CA-22 (Bakersfield) is uncontested AFAIK.  You can track these races yourself with the 2008 Race Tracker wiki.

A couple notes: I’ve changed the percentage of Democratic turnout in the February 5 primary statistics to reflect the final numbers from the Secretary of State’s office.  As you’ll see, six of the thirteen Republican-held seats mentioned had majority Democratic turnout.  Very encouraging.  Also, I’ve noted where applicable which challengers have endorsed the Responsible Plan to End The War In Iraq.  My hope is that eventually every candidate will do so; it will absolutely help them in their campaigns to show some leadership and offer a comprehensive strategy to end the war and change our conversation around national security.

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Main challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  In researching this race, I’ve noticed that Jerry McNerney gets excellent press inside his district.  He’s moved to more comfortable policy areas for him, like renewable energy and the green economy.  And he was pretty bold in standing up to the fearmongers who ran ads in his district against him about the FISA bill.  The NRCC found some coins in the couch and paid for a “Vote McNerney Out” website in support of their challenger Dean Andal.  But the percentage of Democratic turnout in the district reflects the fact that the demographics really have shifted here.  So, good luck, NRCC.

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do three tiers in setting apart the top 13 seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challengers: Doug Ose, Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  This race is really heating up.  The Tom McClintock welfare queen story has legs, and may damage him in his primary fight against former US Rep. Doug Ose.  A guy running as the ultimate rock-ribbed fiscal conservative can’t be seen enriching himself on the public dole.  The Ose-McClintock primary is getting nasty, with McClintock saying things like “He is one of those congressman that has squandered away our rights.”  Meanwhile, Charlie Brown has kept his promises by donating $17,500 to veterans care providers, an event which got great press.  He also took the endorsement of VoteVets PAC and won an online poll with the veterans’ group, yielding $5,000 for his campaign.  CA-04 is most definitely still in play.

2. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  The first real misstep of the campaign from David Dreier came this month, as he misstated his earnings from stock sales (to the tune of $263,000) in financial disclosure reports.  Russ Warner pounced on it, and Dreier tried to make excuses, but it fits into the narrative of him being out of touch with the district.  

Kristin Ponts, campaign manager for Warner, said, “The idea that David Dreier, who has been in Congress for 27 years, wouldn’t know how to fill out a basic financial disclosure form is absurd.”

Warner called the report an example of the “scandal-plagued culture of corruption” in Washington. He said that it was “no surprise given these recent failures to comply with House ethics rules” that Dreier chose to vote against stronger rules being adopted in the House.

The creation of an independent house ethics office was recently approved by a 229-182 vote with opposition from most Republicans.

That’s a fighting Democrat right there.  Dreier also has a Republican primary challenge, though it doesn’t look to be that big a deal.

3. CA-50.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challengers: Nick Leibham, Cheryl Ede.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  The press is starting to come around in thinking that this is a legitimate race.  Nick Leibham was profiled in an interview by Lucas O’Connor that was pretty revealing.  I liked this:

We win this fight because their platform is old and it’s worn out…The Reagan Revolution…which started really in 1964 with Goldwater’s defeat…it culminated in 1980 and 1994 and the end of the Bush years are a bookend. It’s tired, it’s played out, and it no longer offers up a positive agenda for America. This isn’t just a change election in the sense of Democrats or Republicans.  This is a paradigm shifting election and Democrats can capture that…they’ve got a lot of work to do but we can capture it and I think the pendulum is swinging our way.

Cheryl Ede, who’s been endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, has a base of support in the district, as evidenced by this account of an Escondido Democratic Club meeting where Leibham’s policy stances were questioned as perhaps being too conservative.  I think it’s great to be having this debate, and having Democrats locally move their candidates to the most representative positions.  That can only help in the fall.

Second Tier

4. CA-45.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challengers: Paul Clay, David Hunsicker, Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  As seen by the majority Democratic turnout in the primary, this is a district that’s ripe for a takeover.  And I’m intrigued by the prospect of proven electoral winner Julie Bornstein rising to the challenge.  Bono Mack is married to a guy in Florida and lives in Washington.  Bornstein is someone who’s represented the district and can do the same in the Congress.  And her son is currently serving in Iraq, which is undeniably powerful.  She announced her candidacy on the fifth anniversary of the war.  Her area of expertise is affordable housing, which is a sorely needed perspective in Washington, too.  Keep an eye on this race, it could easily go top-tier.

5. CA-46.  Last month: 7.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  This is going to be the most fun race of the cycle, no doubt about it.  Dana Rohrabacher is crazy.  This is well-known.  He spent an hour on the floor of the Congress recently ranting about a secret investigation about the 1993 WTC bombing that sounded like a first draft from an Oliver Stone movie.  His former aide was just sentenced to three years in prison for molesting young boys.  Howie Klein can give you all the background you’d ever need on Rohrabacher.  And this year, we’re actually poised to capitalize on this.  Debbie Cook is the mayor of Huntington Beach, a solid Democrat who has endorsed the Responsible Plan.  The Rohrabacher people are clearly nervous; they’ve been trying to use legal shenanigans to remove “Mayor” from Cook’s designation on the ballot.  This was tossed out of court, but the strategy is to bleed Cook of money and resources and tangle her up in legal machinations.  It’s almost just as telling that Crazy Dana is teaming up with Maxine Waters and calling for a boycott of the Olympic opening ceremonies in Beijing in protest of the crackdown in Tibet.  He’s trying to moderate his nutball stances.  He’s scared.

6. CA-03.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  As I’ve said earlier, this is the most Democratic seat currently held by a Republican.  It had the highest Democratic turnout in February of any Republican-held seat, and it has the narrowest registration advantage, too.  Bill Durston is a physician and a Vietnam combat veteran.  He needs the resources, but a Democrat can win this district, and maybe some of the national money put into the neighboring district of CA-04 will wear off on people over here.  Plus, Debra Bowen’s relentless registration efforts have their best effect in the districts in and around Sacramento, and these days that means more registered Democrats.  This one will be close.

Also, Dr. Durston wrote a song about war.

Third Tier

7. CA-52.  Last month: 6.  Open seat.  Repub. challengers: several, including Duncan D. Hunter.  Dem. challengers: Mike Lumpkin, Vicki Butcher.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Duncan Hunter is still favored, but Navy SEAL Commander Mike Lumpkin has been good at raising money, and this interview with him shows that he has a decent command of the issues.  Green Beret Jim Hester dropped out to endorse Lumpkin.  Much like in CA-50, Vicki Butcher has been endorsed by PDA, and will offer a nice progressive counter-weight in the primary.  A contested primary can only help a novice candidate like this.  Here’s a not-so-decent story on the race.

8. CA-42.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challengers: Ron Shepston (Responsible Plan Endorser), Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0.  Disclosure: I do some netroots work for Ron Shepston.  You pretty much can’t find Gary Miller anymore, he’s gone so far underground, but Ron Shepston has become more visible of late.  He endorsed the Responsible Plan, and he attacked Gary Miller for a $1.28 million dollar earmark that he placed in the 2005 highway bill, clearly to benefit his biggest campaign contributor.  Ed Chau is also a bit of a mystery, although the LA County Labor Fed endorsed him.  I can’t imagine they’d put money into the primary, however.

9. CA-24.  Last month: NR.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challengers: Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant, Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6.  I decided to add this seat after seeing the Democratic turnout numbers from February.  If the right candidate can raise enough money to be visible, this is a dark horse seat.  Elton Gallegly is your basic rubber stamp Republican, and he flirted with retirement in 2006.  Jill Martinez was the opponent that year, and Mary Pallant, my fellow 41st AD delegate, appears to be putting together a decent organization locally.  PDA has endorsed Pallant, and she penned an op-ed in the Ventura County Star responding to Elton Gallegly’s no new taxes screed in the same paper.

The congressman plays a numbers game with the people’s money, while distorting history and facts. He feigns compassion for the nation’s middle class and poor while protecting tax loopholes for megamillionaires and the well-connected few.

Gallegly’s tax policy is inconsistent and unsound because it is too simplistic and relies upon the discredited notion of supply-side economics. The only thing that trickles down is massive debt to those least able to pay.

I love a strong an unabashed progressive in this district.  Let’s see what happens.  Marta Jorgensen is also running in this district.

10. CA-44.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick.  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick is the only challenger for this seat headed into the primary, as Louis Vandenberg and Rogelio Morales have dropped out.  Ken Calvert’s corruption questions continue to grow, as he has sponsored legislation that would help some business partners back home.  The fact that Democratic and Republican turnout was virtually tied in February shows that there’s an opportunity here.

11. CA-41.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challengers: Tim Prince, Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Jerry Lewis just got a lifeline from the new US Attorney for Los Angeles.  Thomas O’Brien disbanded the public corruption unit that would be investigating Lewis’ corrupt actions on behalf of lobbyists.  Dianne Feinstein is seeking answers on this, but the short answer is that Lewis is probably out of the woods on the indictment front.

12. CA-25.  Last month: NR.  Incumbent: Buck McKeon.  Challenger: Jacquese Conaway.  PVI #: R+7.  % Dem. turnout: 50.9%.  I threw this in because this is yet another seat where Democratic turnout outpaced Republican turnout in February.  I know nothing about Jacquese Conaway other than her candidate website.

13. CA-48.  Last month: NR.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  I really like Steve Young and the tireless work he’s done to build the party in one of the reddest areas in the entire country.  Visit his site, won’t you?