By my count, we had nine local and federal candidates or elected officials from California joining us in Austin for Netroots Nation.  So much for the adage that us dirty hippie bloggers are to be avoided at all costs.  These candidates and politicians represent the foundation of a progressive alliance that can transform the party and the state over the next decade.  And they all received varying degrees of support at the convention.  Here is a brief roundup in alphabetical order:

1) Secretary of State Debra Bowen – Debra apparently accepted the invitation to appear on a panel about election reform by replying on Facebook.  She is one of our favorites because of her progressive credentials, her commitment to election reform, and her accessibility.  Far from dropping in for the panel and dropping out, she took time to hang out with plenty of us Caliticians.  In fact, during the netroots candidate event, she was simply watching the proceedings when Christine Pelosi called her to the stage – it was not her intention to come as a candidate, but to just attend the conference.  That said, there was a lot of talk among the California delegation about Bowen’s plans for the future.  At least four California convention-goers told me they would quit their jobs to work for Bowen if she sought higher office than the Secretary of State.  She has a bright future and, judging from the reception she received, a national profile.  She is one of our best hopes to get a real grassroots progressive into a legitimate position of power.

more on the flip…

2) Charlie Brown (CA-04) – Charlie has been to all three Netroots Nation events, including the first two when it was known as Yearly Kos.  He is a hero among this community, and he has a lot of support here.  In fact, he proved it with a very well-received appearance at the Lurker’s Caucus.

One of the people attending the caucus was Charlie Brown.  He was there to do what a great many political candidates came to the convention to do — speak to people, press the flesh, make them aware of his campaign and expand awareness.  I was taking a seemingly arbitrary route around the room in calling on people to talk about themselves, and Charlie was one of the first people I called on.

Obviously there was a great interest in him, and there was a lively give and take between the attendants and The Colonel for about 15 minutes.  He cheerfully answered questions and gave us all a good measure of him.

Now, there are a couple of things here that make this moment extraordinary to me.  First of all, the odds were very slight that there were any people in this caucus who were from his home district.  And this was the Lurkers Caucus, a group whose only unifying distinction is that they don’t blog!! But here was Charlie, in a convention filled with bloggers, talking to the very people least likely to blog his appearance. (Yes, I’m blogging it now, but he didn’t know I was going to be there…)

Secondly, after he spoke, we still had about 50 minutes of the caucus and we had resumed moving around the room, giving people opportunities to express themselves.  Now, I know that Charlie was not there to share his lurking experiences.  He was there to campaign.  I fully expected him, and would not have blamed him in the least, to quietly slip out of the room in search of more campaigning opportunities at the convention.  In fact, that’s part of the reason I kind of steered the circuit of speakers to allow him to speak early.  But Charlie stayed for the entire session, listening to people explain why they don’t blog!

It was indicative of the respect Brown has shown for this entire community, from top to bottom, and it’s what’s going to make him a great Congressman from the 4th District.  This is one of the top races in the country from the perspective of the netroots.

3) Debbie Cook (CA-46) – I think Debbie Cook, Annette Taddeo and Alan Grayson were among the most well-received newcomers at the event.  Cook’s passion for environmental and energy issues matched up perfectly with the overriding concerns of the entire conference, which helped a lot.  At the Energy Panel she sat on, along with Alaska Senate candidate Mark Begich and Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, people in the room told me she was the most impressive.  And Talking Points Memo was similarly taken with Mayor Cook, as can be seen in this interview for the popular site.

Cook switched her flight so she could make the Netroots candidate event on Friday night.  I think she served her candidacy a great deal through this appearance, and considering that in-district donations to her campaign passed 70% in Q2, she has a lot of potential to raise her national profile online.

4) Rocky Delgadillo, LA City Attorney – Delgadillo, who lost to Jerry Brown in a primary for the Attorney General in 2006, appeared on a health care panel that I thought was the most interesting of the entire conference.  I’m going to do a larger story on it, but Delgadillo’s work in this area, rooting out corruption and illegal acitivity among health insurers, was justly recognized.  I didn’t see him walking around the conference.  Here’s a great diary from nyceve at Daily Kos about his efforts.

5) Mike Lumpkin (CA-52) – Calitics actually held an extended breakfast conversation with Lumpkin, running in the open seat created by Duncan Hunter’s retirement.  Here’s a pic:

That’s me, my subpar breakfast, Brian, Mike Lumpkin, and Lucas.  Photo by Matt Lockshin.

I thought Lumpkin was pretty good.  He’s a former Navy SEAL with 20 years of experience in counterinsurgency and command techniques, serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Notably, his plan for Iraq includes a total withdrawal of all forces, leaving no residual troops.  He tends to frame most of the issues in terms of national security, which I guess is to be expected, and he talked about securing the border as well as energy security as two of his major issues on the campaign trail.  Duncan Hunter’s son, also named Duncan Hunter, is his opponent, and in the primary polls revealed that a substantial portion of voters thought they were casting a ballot for the incumbent, so this is not really an open seat in the traditional sense.  Still, this is a race to watch, and I appreciated Lumpkin taking the time to talk with us.

6) Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Mayor – Mayor Newsom walked around the hall on Saturday, showed up at our Calitics/Alternet Books party, and introduced Van Jones on Sunday morning.  Joe Garifoli has a little interview on why he attended:

Newsom is no stranger to online communication. He’s been regularly courting Bay Area bloggers for stories that the uh, ahem, other news poohbahs in town aren’t into. Just this week, he chatted up the city’s wind power project with a handful of local and statewide bloggers. He’s a Daily Kos and Huffington Post regular reader and occasional poster, and he copped to following threads around Facebook. “I really don’t have time to be on there,” he said of the social networking time suck.

“I’m not a convert, I’m one who recognizes the power and extraordinary influence the netroots have. Not just with politics, but it’s about a different interactions with people.” He went to Austin because “I wanted to understand more fully the intensity behind those names. We actually met ‘Bill in Portland Maine.'”

Clearly Newsom was there to build a profile for a statewide run for governor, and I thought that was generally successful.  There seemed to be a buzz around his visit as he walked the halls, and the crowd was receptive to his Sunday morning message, which focused on the environment.  Some were skeptical of the message, and I hope he clarifies his position, but when I spoke with him, I found him very willing to engage on the issues.  I asked about prison policy, one of my hobby horses, and while he wasn’t fully informed on the topic, he expressed a need to drill down and asked me personally to provide him with whatever information I could muster.  You bet I’ll do so, and I respect anyone in politics willing to have a two-way conversation.

7) Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House – You may recall she had a little discussion with some dude on Saturday morning.  That’s been well-covered elsewhere.  Speaking to Pelosi’s staffers, I can tell you that she enjoyed the back and forth and expected MORE of a grilling, which may have been a fault of the organization or the perhaps too-respectful commenters themselves.

8) Russ Warner (CA-26) – This was Russ’ second Netroots Nation, and he did his best to focus on meeting as many people as possible.  I did tend to see him and his campaign staff just about everywhere.  He delivered his passionate message about his son, who was in attendance, at the Netroots candidate event as well.

9) Steve Young (CA-48) – Steve is running for Congress but he’s also a member of the community, and during the California caucus he was as active as anyone in participating in the discussion.  The numbers he’s been showing around on his race suggest there is a real chance here, and I hope he got a lot out of the event.

( – promoted by shayera)

Cross posted at DailyKos

Last month Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) made news of the silly sort when he stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and gave a speech ascribing global climate change to “dinosaur flatulence.”

In comments broadcast on C-SPAN television last week, Rohrabacher suggested that “dinosaur flatulence” may have been responsible for past swings in global temperatures, and that the enormous growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past century — and increased global temperatures — are not man-caused.

Rohrabacher’s claim puts him at odds with many in his own party, including President George W. Bush, whose White House acknowledged man-made global warming this year.

Of course, after his comments turned him into a media laughingstock, Rohrabacher tried to walk back from his statement claiming it was all a big joke.  But it’s hard to figure out what’s more offensive, treating the challenges presented by global climate change as a joke or being massively ill-informed about the major perils that face our planet in the coming years.

Of course, Rohrabacher’s buffoonery and willful ignorance of the issues surrounding global climate change stand in stark contrast to the obvious intelligence and sober good judgment that his Democratic opponent Debbie Cook (Mayor, Huntington Beach) brings to the table.  As a recognized expert in energy and transportation policy, Cook is a passionate advocate for renewable energy.  Instead of sticking her head in the sand and indulging in denial, Cook is working to find smart and creative solutions to the very real problems that we face in California and, indeed, nationwide.

Debbie’s message is on the flip…

And Debbie Cook’s message of responsible stewardship is resonating in her district.  Dana Rohrabacher may be an ten-term incumbent who hasn’t had to work for re-election in a very long time, but this year, change is in the air.  The Cook Political Report has changed the rating for the district from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”  Cook has raised more campaign money than Rohrabacher for two consecutive quarters.  And with a Republican PVI of +6, there are some people who see strong comparisons between the CA-46 race and the 2006 race in CA-11 between Jerry McNerney and Richard Pombo.  CA-11 also had a +6 PVI, and at this time in the campaign cycle also was being upgraded from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”

As a matter of fact, in a conversation today at Netroots Nation with A.J. Carrillo, the campaign manager who engineered McNerney’s successful 2006 Congressional campaign, Carrillo took the comparison even further:

“I met Debbie Cook for the first time today. I’ve read a lot about her, and I was just blown away by her as a candidate. She brings a lot to the table, and I think if any seat in California is going to flip, this is the one. There are a lot of parallels to the McNerney race, plus she’s an excellent candidate.”

Today we caught up with Debbie Cook at Netroots Nation and recorded this message to the netroots:

You can find more information about Debbie Cook at DebbieCookForCongress.com.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

This year brings the third iteration of Energize America, a netroots project launched in 2006 by a group of Kossacks including A Siegel and Jérôme a Paris of European Tribune. This year’s panel is heavy on Democratic candidates – US Senate candidates Jeff Merkley and Mark Begich are here, as is Debbie Cook, who is of course running for Crazy Dana’s seat in CA-46. It’s great to see them taking such a lead on energy policy.

[Update] Jérôme opens with a chart showing where oil was in 2006 – $75/bbl. We’re nearly double that today. “If you’re just grumbling it’s not high enough yet.”

Provides a good overview of Peak Oil. The only way out is demand destruction – “you’re going to have to stop burning oil whether we like it or not.” The only issue is how we will destroy demand – whether it’s forced upon us without any plan or whether we can plan for the inevitable.

Mark Sumner – “anybody who thinks we can drill our way out is crazy” – oil producing nations are heading into decline, so there’s not enough oil on the North Slope or off our own coast in California to make up for this ongoing decline. Points out that the estimates of high costs and lost jobs from the 1990 Clean Air Act never materialized – so why should we trust industry/right-wing estimates being floated today?

A Siegel floats a 5-part agenda for progress: improve capacity for change, 50 state impact, public-private and fed-state-local partnerships, not a comprehensive solution, and establish freshman class (in Congress) leadership. This last part is vital – Democrats are doing an extremely poor job in Congress on energy issues. New blood can help turn that failure around.

Debbie Cook is up now – the peakists haven’t yet won, we still have work to do explaining peak oil. Our national policy agenda is “more of the same” – drill, flatten mountains, starve people to put corn into our gas tanks. She is really good on this – clear and engaged.

Cook makes a point I’ve personally argued but never seen anyone else point out – we lived perfectly happy lives in America before the oil age. We don’t need oil to find prosperity and contentment. Extolling walkable communities and community gardens. Red meat (to me at least!).

What will we look like in 50 years? Uses her town, Huntington Beach, as an example of change – from oil derricks to new density (though not nearly enough of it).

Mark Begich up now – currently mayor of Anchorage and candidate against Tubes Stevens in Alaska. It is VERY significant that he is here – for an Alaskan politician to speak out against new drilling, drilling that results in an actual check to Alaska residents, is a welcome act of reality that more Democrats would do well to emulate.

Most of his talk is about retrofitting existing buildings and cities to be more energy efficient. It’s useful but not exactly bold.

Jeff Merkley is at the podium, currently the speaker of the Oregon House and running against Gordon Smith. Now we need “Energy Smart Congress” to complement the other Energy Smart projects. Amen to that. Sort of a campaign speech as opposed to the policy-focused talks that came before.

Q&A over the flip.

Matt Stoller points out that we have a framing problem – the right is getting traction from “Drill Now!” because it’s clear leadership, whereas Democrats are more muddled. How do we counter this?

Mark Begich takes the first response – says we need to know where we’re going first. Not sure that’s a good answer to Stoller’s concerns but if developed this can have value. Stoller wants to know how we can help but Begich doesn’t give a clear response. Merkley doesn’t really do it either.

Cook has a much better response – borrows from Lakoff, “drilling is killing.” Makes a key point – we don’t need another Apollo or Manhattan Project, this isn’t a scientific government project, but it instead need to be a citizen-led effort. Absolutely – unless Americans take responsibility and become participants in this, we will never change how we live.

Merkley calls for a West Coast high speed rail from Seattle to Portland to CA. Woohoo!

My conclusions: Debbie Cook is brilliant. Begich and Merkley aren’t as willing to be bold. The other three activists – A Siegel, Jérôme, Mark Sumner seemed a bit overshadowed by the candidates, which is a shame, but this has the potential for good collaborations, especially once these folks get in office.

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.

A few things of interest as we head into the holiday weekend:

• That mortgage legislation that I noted passing the Assembly yesterday was quickly taken up in the Senate (there were some amendments in the Assembly bill so concurrence was needed, and it passed easily (the vote was 32-8).  The legislation will now be sent to the Governor and there are indications that he will sign it.  Because of the 2/3 vote it received, most of its provisions will take effect immediately.  It’s a decent first step but it had better not be the last.

• The new Cook Report ratings are out, and among the slew of seats where Democrats are gaining, one race in California has shifted:

CA-46    Dana Rohrabacher    Solid Republican to Likely Republican

That’s pretty big news.  Charlie Cook’s report is widely read by insiders, and clearly they are taking notice as to the strength of Debbie Cook’s campaign.  Joe Shaw, communications director for Cook’s campaign, calls it “the first Orange County congressional race to be considered competitive since Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez’s 1996 race against incumbent Bob Dornan.”

• In CA-04, Charlie Brown announced a whirlwind schedule for the 4th of July, participating in events in King’s Beach, Lincoln, Roseville, Grass Valley, Auburn, and Alturas.  Tom McClintock must have seen that and scrambled up on the plane from his Thousand Oaks redoubt, because he hastily scheduled a couple campaign events.  In fact, the two candidates will be in the same parade in Lincoln.  That should be fun.

(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?

When I first heard the reports of John McCain’s flip-flop on offshore oil exploration and consequent back-up from the President, I knew there was one person to call for comment: Debbie Cook.  In addition to being the Mayor of Huntington Beach, Cook sits on the board of directors of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and is an expert on energy issues.  She just sent me this statement (on the flip):

Democratic Congressional Candidate Debbie Cook’s statement on proposals to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling:

“There has been a lot of talk in the last couple of days about lifting the ban on drilling for oil along the coast.  Dana Rohrabacher, John McCain and today President Bush have joined in a chorus of “drill, drill, drill,” as if that will solve our energy problems.

“Time is not on our side, and continuing to divert our attention away from the real problem is a disservice to our citizens and a failure of leadership.

“World oil production has been flat for three years. America’s oil refineries are configured to refine light sweet crude and are currently operating at 88% capacity and paying a premium for this short supply. There is no point for the Middle East, the only region that may have spare capacity, to increase production of heavy sour crudes until new refineries are built or existing refineries have been modified.

“Three fourths of the world’s oil and gas wells have already been drilled in North America.  Our continent is so heavily explored that it looks like swiss cheese.  Eighty percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is already open to leasing and drilling.  Will opening the remaining 20 percent make any difference when it takes 5-10 years to bring any new oil discoveries to market?

“Perhaps we should just call the President’s bluff, sell off the leases and then get on with the real work ahead of us, leaving fossil fuels before they leave us.

“The world economy depends upon the flow of oil, not the oil that remains in the ground. The fact is, more than 50 nations are now past their peak in oil production:  Mexico, Norway, UK, USA, Russia, perhaps even Saudi Arabia to name a few. If you use ExxonMobil’s estimate for the decline rate from these existing wells (-6%), then from now until 2017, we need to find and develop 37 million barrels per day of additional crude production just to stay even with what we consume today. That assumes no growth in demand for oil. That is the equivalent of finding FOUR Saudi Arabias. Does anyone think we have overlooked resources of that size and quality?

“George Bush and Dana Rohrabacher’s failure to understand the fundamental economics and geology of oil and gas production is matched only by their failures as leaders.

“The true solution to our energy problems starts with conservation efforts, and investment in alternative and sustainable energy sources, which will create new American industries and jobs and jumpstart the sluggish economy.”

I want to add to this that oil companies have millions of acres of land with supposed oil deposits and untapped wells already under their control, but they’re not rushing to drill or explore them.  Why?  Because tracts that show up as “untapped oil reserves” are more profitable if they remain untapped.  They inflate the stock price, the result of which goes directly into the execs’ wallets.  And the corporations use them as an asset without having to actually see whether or not there is any oil in the deposits.

Bush and McCain say they want more drilling, but the oil companies don’t.  They want more untapped reserves so they can pump up their balance sheets.

Well, the votes are in, the matchups are set, and so I thought it was time for a baseline roundup of where I think the California House races stand as of now.  The main pieces of information that are causing me to reset my expectations are the primary results, the April 1-May 15 fundraising numbers and the new registration numbers from the Secretary of State’s office.  You can track all three yourself:

Primaries

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)

Voter registration by Congressional district.

That said, let’s take a look, starting with the one threatened Democratic seat.

(A note: I’m going to start a state legislative roundup as well)

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  Good news and bad news out of this race.  The good news is that Dean Andal can’t seem to raise any money – just $11,000 in the pre-primary filing period.  The bad news is that Andal got about 900 more votes in his uncontested primary than McNerney did in his.  McNerney seemed to have a lot of trouble attracting votes in San Joaquin County, which brought back more votes than any county in the district.  While the NRCC and RNC will clearly be gunning for McNerney, the Barack Obama factor is certainly going to help him, as well has his incumbency status.  So it’s not time to pull the alarm just yet.  But McNerney does have some work to do.

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. challenger: Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Well, the battle is set.  Tom McClintock, the Alan Keyes of California, came out of his divisive primary triumphant, and now Charlie Brown has an opponent.  The Brown campaign released polls showing him leading McClintock in a head-to-head matchup.  Steve Weigand isn’t yet willing to bet the farm on a Brown pickup, but he recognizes the Roseville Democrat’s strength against the carpetbagging Republican from Thousand Oaks.  That Brown was able to get 42,000-plus votes against token competition on Tuesday shows that he has an energized activist base.  Peter Hecht has a good primer on the state of the race.  Expect Brown to hammer the message of Patriotism Above Partisanship against his knee-jerk wingnut conservative opponent.  Also, McClintock is broke after a costly primary and has a lot of catching up to do financially.

2. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  Russ Warner avenged his earlier loss to Cynthia Matthews in 2006 by winning handily on Tuesday, 67%-33%.  His turnout was not great, however (just 14,000 votes).  David Dreier got 74% of the vote, not great for an incumbent, and turnout was low district-wide.  Warner has been stepping up his game with a Web ad about Dreier’s frequent trips abroad and a companion site, Frequent Flyer Dreier.  My gut feel is that this is not an effective line of attack, especially when the easiest one is tying Dreier, a member of the House Republican Leadership, to George Bush and a failed conservative agenda.  I think there’s enough interest in this seat that such a message will get out there, however.  But Warner needs to improve on his June performance.  The new registration numbers are moving in Warner’s favor, however.

Second Tier

3. CA-45.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challenger: Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  Bornstein easily bested two challengers and won her race on Tuesday with just over 60% of the vote.  Adding up the Dem v. GOP vote you get about 22,000 Dems and 33,000 Republicans, which isn’t great.  But I feel Bornstein has some advantages.  Being an affordable housing advocate at a time when foreclosures are at an all-time high gives her authority on an important issue.  This article explaining her support for the Foreclosure Prevention Act is an example.  Manuel Perez’ win in AD-80, which partially overlaps the district, will be helpful too, especially if they engage in a campaign to register voters in the underperforming eastern regions of Riverside County like the Coachella Valley.  There’s a lot of room to run here, and it’s wide open for Democrats to exploit.  The registration numbers show just a 19,000-vote difference between Democrats and Republicans, and a dearth of registered voters relative to other districts.  This is an opportunity.  Bornstein also had pretty solid fundraising in the pre-primary filing (around $40K in 6 weeks).

4. CA-46.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  There’s a great profile of this race in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook has survived a few long-shot political battles. But the Debbie-versus-Goliath matchup she’s facing this fall is her biggest gamble yet.

The popular Surf City official is the Democratic hope to unseat GOP incumbent Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — seeking his 11th term — in an underdog campaign some observers believe may succeed.

Read the whole thing.  I need to see Cook’s fundraising numbers go up before I become a true believer, and her primary performance on Tuesday didn’t set the world on fire.  Cook got around 20,000 votes to Rohrabacher’s 35,000.  But Rohrabacher isn’t doing any meaningful fundraising at all, and he continues to stick his foot in his mouth with asinine comments like yesterday’s about torture being just a bunch of “frat boy pranks.”  Cook’s communications team is fabulous and understands the netroots, and they’ll be sure to get attention in this cycle (Blue America has already hosted her).  Rohrabacher acknowledges in the LAT article that he’ll have to pay attention to this race.  He’s right.

5. CA-50.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challenger: Nick Leibham.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  Nick Leibham had a good fundraising cycle (about $70K raised in 6 weeks) but a disastrous primary.  Cheryl Ede, who was not well-funded, got 43 percent of the vote, and Leibham was only able to manage 19,000 votes to Brian Bilbray’s 46,000.  The implication here is that Leibham has a problem with the activist support he’s going to need going into November.  That spells trouble – especially in a seat that’s winnable enough that Bilbray’s going to try and blur party lines in anticipation of a Democratic wave.  In such an environment, we need someone willing to offer a real politics of contrast.  This biographical ad is a decent start but Leibham has to get the message out there.

6. CA-03.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  The news is all pretty good for Bill Durston.  He had a fantastic fundraising cycle (77,000 in 6 weeks) and a strong showing in the primary, getting 26,000 votes to Dan Lungren’s 34,000.  Lungren, last seen in a Speedo on a lobbyist-paid trip to Hawaii, is absolutely going to have to work this time around.  Durston’s strategy in his second attempt to win this seat is slightly reminiscent of the effort against Richard Pombo in 2006.  He’ll need the same kind of support from outside groups to pull it off but it’s not impossible; like in CA-11, the registration numbers are all pointing in the Democratic direction, with less than 4 percentage points and only 15,000 votes separating Democrats and Republicans, the closest of any GOP-held seat.

Third Tier

7. CA-52.  Last month: 8.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin.  Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  The election night numbers show this seat to still be firmly Republican, with Duncan D. Hunter getting over twice as many votes in his race as Mike Lumpkin got in his.  Lumpkin managed only 58% of the vote, too, so he needs to lock down base support.  Lumpkin’s fundraising remains OK but Hunter’s got a big advantage there.  I personally liked Lumpkin’s rejection of those who would treat marriage equality as a divisive wedge issue.

8. CA-44.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick got only 15,000 votes in his uncontested effort on Tuesday, but Ken Calvert got only 25,000 votes in his.  This seems like one of those seats where nobody actually knows who the incumbent is.  In a Democratic wave election, this is on the outside edge of being competitive.

9. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challenger: Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6.  This was the shocker primary of the night.  Marta Jorgensen, who had dropped out of the race up until a couple weeks before the primary, ended up besting her two challengers, leaving party leaders in the district baffled.  There were hopes that this could be a battleground in November, but obviously Jorgensen – who had no expectation of winning and was told about her victory by the media – has a lot of work to do.  She introduced herself to the Calitics community today, and her record as someone who worked on the Draft Gore movement is admirable.  We’ll see how she approaches the next few months.

10. CA-41.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challenger: Tim Prince.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3. Tim Prince received just 32% of the vote in winning his primary over 3 challengers on Tuesday.  With Jerry Lewis apparently in the clear from a legal standpoint, even his role as one of America’s most corrupt politicians may not be enough to take him down.

11. CA-42.  Last month: 7.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challengers: Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0.  Ed Chau got around 7,000 votes in disposing of two challengers on primary night, while Gary Miller, running unopposed, got 32,000.  Chau needs to raise his profile throughout the district, as he lives outside it.  There is a small Asian community in the district and that would be a good place to start.

12. CA-48.  Last month: 13.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  In a district including Irvine, the housing issue is going to be enormous, so if Steve Young wants to have a shot he’s going to have to make that the big issue.  He got 18,000 votes in his uncontested primary; John Campbell got 40,000 in his.  It’s an uphill climb.