Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman's announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called "jobs" initiative" (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.
Poizner's and Whitman's attacks on California's landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: "Smokestack Steve" and "Monoxide Meg."
It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state's natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to "Build a Greener Governor" (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.
This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.
If, out of some prurient curiosity, you ever wondered how an insurance executive lives, check out the house Mercury Insurance CEO Gabe Tirador bought soon after taking over the reins in 2007 (and about a year before laying off 363 employees). Of course, CEO's houses are bubkis compared with the Chairmen. That's where the real square footage is. Mercury's founding Chairman lives in a Los Angeles palace, also pictured at our new StopTheSurcharge.org website, which pulls back the veil on these executives and their effort to add a new surcharge to California car insurance premiums for anyone who didn't have auto insurance at some point in the past five years. Even if they didn't have a car!
The site will keep updated tabs on Mercury's attempt to raise car insurance rates as well as the goings-on of these executives who are, not surprisingly, completely out of touch with what it means to be dealing with the economic realities of most Californians. There is info on how this initiative is scrooging soliders as well as info on the front groups Mercury is deploying to pitch their scam.
And you can be sure there is more to come, since we're dealing with an insurance company described by state regulators this way:
Mercury's lengthy history of serious misconduct, and its attitude - contempt towards and/or abuse of its customers, the Commissioner, its competition, and the Superior Court - are all relevant to determining the penalty needed to best ensure the protection of the public from future violations and wrongdoing...
Among Department [of Insurance] staff, consumer attorneys, and consumer victims of its bad faith, Mercury has a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference.*
*The statement came in a brief submitted by the Department of Insurance in February 2009 in response to a motion by Mercury to exclude evidence of the company's past conduct. See key pages from that brief here. See, particularly, page 4.
My name is John Kitzhaber. Before serving two terms as Oregon's governor I was an emergency room doctor. I'd like to take a moment of your time to talk about health care.
As the national debate health care reform debate intensifies, it is important to remember the objective here is not just to finance and deliver medical care - the objective is to improve the health of Americans. And to date the congressional debate has been focused largely on insurance reform rather than on health care reform.
We certainly need insurance reform - and all Americans need financial access to the health care system. But the cost of health insurance is ultimately a reflection of the underlying cost of health care and unless we can reduce the cost of health care itself we will fail to solve this problem.
LOS ANGELES, CA - The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California. At least one initiative to restore same-sex marriage is currently circulating that, if it qualifies, would appear on the November, 2010 ballot...
"For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward. Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box," said Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign founder and Chair. "We are taking the lessons learned from last year's Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently."
I am understanding this to mean that the Courage Campaign is no longer on board with a 2010 campaign and will be shifting their resources to a 2012 effort (although the language is oddly vague-- if any Courage Campaign people are reading this, any clarification would be appreciated greatly). At a minimum the clear message of this release is that Courage Campaign does not at this time support the specific 2010 ballot filing by Love Honor Cherish, which they reference in the first paragraph.
Courage Campaign is currently soliciting volunteers for their Prop. 8 repeal and "Equality Team" efforts here. EQCA is also soliciting volunteers to canvass for their 2012 repeal campaign here.
Gavin Newsom's decision to quit the race for governor has left California Democrats with just one option - two-term governor Jerry Brown, back for his third term after nearly 30 years. For the first time in a very, very long time (before 1934), there will not be a contested Democratic primary where there is an open seat in the governor's office.
This is not a positive development for the California Democratic Party or the future of our state. A contested Democratic gubernatorial primary is essential to not only a strong Democratic campaign in the fall of 2010, but more importantly, to rebuilding the shattered ruins of a once-golden state.
We need to first look at the big picture. As we're seeing in Virgina and New Jersey gubernatorial races, the deciding factor is whether the Obama voters of 2008 will turn out to elect Democrats in state gubernatorial races. The answer to that question is clear: where the candidate espouses openly progressive positions, as Jon Corzine has begun to do in New Jersey, he has some success in motivating the Obama voters to return to the polls and elect a Democratic governor. Whereas Creigh Deeds couldn't distance himself from Obama quickly enough and took anti-progressive positions, and now faces a resounding defeat at the hands of a wingnut.
To those who say "it can't happen here," I say your understanding of California politics is superficial. For over a century California voters default to electing Republicans to the governor's office. Since 1900 only four Democrats have served as California governor. Two of them served essentially one term: Culbert Olson was beaten by Earl Warren in 1942, and you know what happened to Gray Davis in 2003.
The other two were named Edmund G. Brown. The younger of the two Edmund G. Browns is the last man standing in the 2010 Democratic primary for governor. Now you might think that is a positive sign for Dems, that one of the only two Democrats to serve two full terms as CA governor since 1900 is likely to be the party's nominee in 2010. After all, Jerry Brown has a decent poll lead over the three Republicans, so we should be fine in 2010, right?
I am much less confident. A contested primary will only make Brown a stronger candidate should he indeed win that primary - and more importantly, it would give Democrats and DTS voters a chance to weigh in on the future of California, to have a real discussion about how to fix a broken state.
Here is my first attempt at redistricting California for 2010. I gave myself an extra challenge of keeping the representatives' residences in their respective districts save of course McClintock, and assuming Garamendi wins CA-10.
For the demographics, I noticed that even in obviously heavy Hispanic areas, the "Hispanic" percentage was ridiculously low, while the "Other" category was more representative of the Hispanic population, so for "Hispanic" I will use the "Hispanic" and "other" numbers.
Later on I will attempt redistricting the State Senate and Assembly. I know there is a panel that will draw the state legislative districts, but I still intend to give a shot at these maps.
Allan Hoffenblum is the publisher of the California Target Book and the most-quoted pundit with respect to state elections. He is a weathervane for party money and which Party is up or down. He spoke yesterday in Sacramento and was incredibly blunt.
At a conference sponsored by Hoffenblum's publication, the Republican identified eight congressional seats and 13 state Assembly seats as competitive. Nearly all of those Assembly seats and more than half of the congressional seats are now held by Republicans.
"I think this is going to be when we find out if the Republican Party has any life left in it whatsoever as far as being a statewide competitive party," said Hoffenblum, whose publication tracks and handicaps races throughout the state.
A drop in Republican registration and an influx in decline-to-state voters who have not traditionally voted with the GOP have put some districts formerly considered "safe" Republican seats into play.
"I think it's going to be a very, very difficult road on the Republican front if they don't do something about registration, something to appeal to decline-to-state voters, many of whom are Latinos and Asians who have not been voting Republican for the last four election cycles," Hoffenblum said.
This actually flies in the face of predictions at the national level of a 1994 redux. But it does meet with the general trend in California, as a diverse population drops any love for the Republican Party altogether. As Hoffenblum noted, eight Congressional districts held by Republicans went for Barack Obama over John McCain last November, and 12 Assembly districts held by Republicans share the same trait. A smart party with targeted resources could easily pick up more Congressional seats and the number in the Assembly needed to secure a 2/3 majority. In the state Senate, one of the two seats needed for 2/3 looks pretty ripe for takeover - SD-12, where Asm. Anna Caballero is the Dem candidate and Sen. Jeff Denham is termed out.
I actually am not quite as sanguine as Hoffenblum. There are Democratic-held seats that could face a fight - at the Congressional level, I think Dennis Cardoza might have some trouble with Mike Berryhill, and the swing Assembly districts held by Alyson Huber, Joan Buchanan and possibly others could be threatened. The demographics of the 2010 midterms will be more favorable to Republicans than the demographics of the 2008 Presidential election. And the failures on the budget, and the ensuing suffering, could easily resonate with voters against the majority party if Democrats aren't careful.
But in general, as Hoffenblum said, the trend in California from the standpoint of the electorate is away from conservatism and toward progressivism, and that march will simply be extremely difficult to stop. Public attitudes have not only been trending against minority rule but against the entire brand of failed conservatism that brought us the tragedy of the Bush years. While practically every party in the White House loses seats in a midterm election, the peculiar dynamic in California may blunt that impact - and could lead to a better future for California as well.
CYD and the USC Young Dems are hosting a forum on the Attorney General's race this Sunday, to be held at the Leavey Library on the USC campus this Sunday at 1:45. All the candidates except Kamala Harris will be in attendance.
The organizers have asked me to solicit questions for the candidates from the Calitics community. If you have a question you'd like to be considered for consideration, please send them to CYD Deputy Political Director Charlie Carnow at ccarnow at youngdems.org.
Ye ole curmudgeon decided to level his sights on Sen. Barbara Boxer today and discuss her re-election chances. He starts out with this lede:
California's U.S. senators tend to fall into two categories - headline-grabbers and dependable workhorses for the state's interests.
Headline grabbers...hmm that would have to be Sen. Feinstein, who relishes her self-designated role of wise moderate woman, that determines what is or is not a deal.
Somehow, I think that Walters meant it the other way around. He references "quixotic political frays" that have "nothing to do with California". Then of course he never gives any examples, leaving the reader to either scratch their head, or trust the wise man of the column.
Walters then brings up the Rasmussen poll from a few weeks ago, which was unsurprising. Like most years Boxer looks vulnerable, tempting the Republicans to throw the kitchen sink to unseat her.
This year the national Republican hierarchy are excited about Carly Fiorina, who gets 41 to Boxer's 45 in the matchup. Of course she has to get past movement conservative Chuck DeVore in the primary. Fiorina's primary is not a shoe-in. It would not be all that surprising to see DeVore win the wingnut vote that dominates Republican primaries. Fiorina will have to dump a ton of cash into the primary to hold DeVore off.
Walters then does his best to weaken Boxer by providing only half of her favorability numbers.
The latest poll, true to form, found Boxer's overall job approval rating among California voters to be fairly low, with just 21 percent holding a "very favorable" view, down six points from March.
When one normally writes about favorability numbers you add up the very favorable and somewhat favorable results to come up with an overall favorability number. In this case, according to this Rasmussen poll, she has a 21% very favorable and a 36% somewhat favorable, for an overall 57% favorabilty rating, which while not great isn't nearly as bad as Walters tries to make it seem.
If Fiorina wins the primary then Boxer will likely have a tougher race in 2010, certainly compared to 2004. We need to be prepared to defend her with all guns blazing. Fiorina certainly comes with a lot of baggage that would be great fodder for blog posts and attack ads.
There are no huge alarm bells ringing right now, no matter what Walters has written, but we need to be on alert and watch closely as we move into election season. Early cash is better than late cash. Give via ActBlue.
Only one of the Obama Eight is in NorCal and it may be one of the hottest contests of the coming cycle. It's Dan Lungren vs. a slew a suddenly well-funded Dems.
Oh, and how's this for a little Democratic hustle? A source tells me that Bill Slaton, a SMUD Board Member and recent addition to the Dem field will post $227,000 for the first quarter and that he raised that amount in just three weeks with nothing but a phone and a rolodex.
(Thanks for the update. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Lots happening down in CA-24. Brian Dennert has several scoops. First, Elton Gallegly's anemic fundraising:
What's on his agenda? He doesn't appear on television much, he doesn't hold town hall forums, and he isn't going to be passing much legislation being in the minority party. In the last quarter he raised: $42,057.75
Should Democrats and Republicans interested in running get encouragement from those numbers that he might be retiring? He does have more than $800,000 in his warchest which should prove effective at protecting him if he does run again. But is a slow fundraising period a sign that he is retiring?
We're setting a course for the center of the sun in the state budget process right now, but today is also the last day of the second quarter, an important day for Congressional candidates, who must file fundraising reports based on close of business today. So this is as good a time as any to take a look at the Congressional races and where we stand at this point. I have not yet done similar roundups for 2010 statewide offices or legislative races, but plan to do so in the near future. If you find any of these challenges attractive, I urge you to pass a few bucks along to the candidate of your choice. This quarter will help or hurt the candidacies in terms of their perception of viability.
A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link. Open Congress also has a good Wiki on all the seats involved.
It's great to be here blogging with you at Calitics! I look forward to stopping by regularly and working with you in the weeks and months ahead.
As you probably know, I'm running for re-election in 2010, and our June 30th fundraising deadline is rapidly approaching. It's important that we post solid numbers at the end of each quarter to show our potential right-wing opponents that we're ready for anything they throw at us. But this deadline is even more important than most.
Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General. He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking. The words "prisons," "jails," "corrections" or "parole" was not mentioned.
Our prison system is a mess. We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole. This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime. The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education. Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men's Central Jail. Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that's a drop in the bucket. We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The "tough on crime" mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.
And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is. Gavin Newsom didn't bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards. He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters. And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform. With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn't consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment. And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon. But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing. Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.
I have appreciated Greg Lucas' interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General's race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis. (over)
Charlie Cook's PVI (Partisan Voting Index) ratings have become an indispensable tool for quickly identifying the partisan lean of any particular Congressional district in the country. Cook basically takes the Presidential results of the past two election cycles in a particular district and matches them against the results of the entire country to come up with the PVI number. If a district is R+3, for example, that basically means it is 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. I like the Cook PVI because it isn't based on raw registration numbers, but actual electoral performance that is somewhat uniform across the country.
Thanks to the release of full election data by Congressional district throughout the country, Cook can now calculate the new PVI ratings for every seat. The California numbers are worth considering. (I've put all 53 on the flip). As Cook notes, there are 8 districts in the state with "Obama Republicans"; that is, Republican Congressmen in districts that Obama carried (There are no "McCain Democrats"). Those districts are:
Of those seats, the three with the closest PVI ratings are CA-26, CA-45 and CA-50, all which have R+3. CA-24 is an R+4. And the rest in this group are R+6. Keep in mind that 2004 Bush-Kerry stats are factored into this, so there may be a bit of lag from the actual nature of the district.
Of these seats, the only Republican-held seat to get noticeably more Democratic from the 2004 set of ratings was CA-48, which went from an R+8 to an R+6. Several Democratic-held seats shifted in that fashion as well, as the largest partisan shifts in the country were "disproportionately western and suburban," says Cook.
The most Republican district in the state is CA-22 (McCarthy), which is the 44th most Republican in the country at R+16. The most Democratic is CA-09 (Lee), the 5th most Democratic in the country at D+37. A couple other notes:
• Jerry McNerney still holds an R+1 seat. However, this is not surprising, since Democrats hold 34 of the 50 seats between R+2 and D+2.
• CA-10 grew slightly more Democratic this time, at D+11, further destroying the myth that it's a moderate seat. Actual somewhat close (though not in danger) Democratic seats include CA-18 (Cardoza, D+4), CA-20 (Costa, D+5) and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez, D+4).
• Turning to races from last year, CA-46 remains moderately competitive at R+6, while CA-04 (McClintock) is R+10, a testament to how strong Charlie Brown was to even compete.
Now, this just measures the partisan lean of a district, not the partisanship of a particular member of Congress. A better judge for that would be the Progressive Punch score weighted for district tilt, an excellent measure of whether or not a member is out of step with their district. In California, the strongest Dems are Barbara Lee, Linda Sanchez and Lynn Woolsey, while the weakest Dems are Jim Costa, Jerry McNerney and Jane Harman (and remember, that's district-weighted).
A lot to digest here, but much of it is familiar - we have multiple potential Congressional targets, and have for a number of cycles, but just need to use resources and ground talent better.
It's depressing to think - after having just lost an expensive and exhausting campaign - that repealing Proposition 8 could mean going back to the ballot. It is unfair and unjust that a slim majority of California voters took a fundamental right away from a minority, jeopardizing equal protection. But the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the City Attorney's lawsuit yesterday, and the signs were very discouraging. Justice Joyce Kennard (who last year voted to grant marriage equality) was hostile to the case against Prop 8, and Chief Justice Ron George was skeptical. Not that there isn't any hope: perhaps the extreme arguments made by Prop 8 lawyer Kenneth Starr will inadvertently sway the Court into recognizing the measure's dangerous effects. But no one should expect the Court to repeal Prop 8. Activists must get ready for a 2010 proposition campaign as the next available remedy, however deficient a political solution that would be. We must learn from the colossal mistakes of the past campaign, and a new generation of activists will make it happen.
Crossposted from the less-dormant-than-usual Reelpolitik.org.
California Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown is the latest person to succumb to the 25 Random Things craze that’s sweeping across Facebook.
How did I know this? I saw a Tweet on the JerryBrown2010 Twitter profile.
6. My official portrait as Governor was quite controversial and the legislature refused to hang it. My Father said if I didn’t get a new one, I could never run again. It is now hanging and I am still running. (Facebook: Jerry Brown’s 25 Random Things)
It's expected for a lawmaker in the beginning of a new election cycle to get a little more active, with high-profile articulations of positions on key issues. So it is for Sen. Barbara Boxer. In the past week, she has released a report on the statewide recession, featuring interviews with local officials from all 58 counties; demanding that Attorney General Mukasey intervene to reverse a "blatantly illegal" memo by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claiming that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant (the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is); and most interesting to me, wrote a letter to incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry calling for hearings on the Bush Administration's use of torture, as well as an outside commission to investigate it:
I write today to raise an issue of the utmost significance -- the Administration's use of torture against detainees held in U.S. custody. Despite widespread condemnation from Members of Congress, policy experts, and human rights advocates, Vice President Richard Cheney stated in a recent interview with ABC News that the torture policies used against detainees were appropriate and admitted that he played a role in their authorization. In fact, when asked if any of the tactics -- including waterboarding -- went too far, he responded with a curt "I don't."
I find Vice President Cheney's response deplorable, particularly in light of a recent report released by the Senate Armed Services Committee following an eighteen-month investigation. In sum, the bipartisan report found that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." The report, led by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, concluded that "those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority." I fully support Chairman Levin's proposal for an outside Commission with subpoena power to investigate this matter further.
The whole letter is here. This is one step away from the needed call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Bush's war crimes, but it's as close as any Senator has been willing to go. This suggests that Boxer considers an investigation of this nature to not only be the right thing to do in a democracy, but not electorally damaging whatsoever. She should be supported in this belief and encouraged to go even further. I know that Senator Boxer has begun asking for contributions to her re-election campaign. Maybe a series of contributions of $9.12, signaling support for a "9/12" torture commission and an independent prosecutor, along with emails and letters explaining this, would relay the message?
Friend of Calitics Ted Lieu has shown a lot of leadership during the housing crisis, attempting time and again to hold the mortgage brokers responsible and get sensible legislation passed that protects homeowners. It's been his signature issue the past two years. Now he's going to run for Attorney General.
Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, filed paperwork this week to run for attorney general in 2010.
Lieu is the third Democrat to make the move, following San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who announced she was exploring a run in mid-November, and former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, who filed in July.
Harris and Lieu and Canciamilla can answer one question for me that would help me in my decision for 2010. Do they feel they can keep stonewalling the Federal Prison Receiver, as Jerry Brown has, and refusing to comply with providing prisoners an environment that doesn't violate their Constitutional rights, or do they feel that the failure in leadership over 30 years of wrong-way sentencing and "tough on crime" nonsense needs to be stopped. Solving the prison crisis ought to be the foremost issue for the state's top cop.
The site will keep updated tabs on Mercury's attempt to raise car insurance rates as well as the goings-on of these executives who are, not surprisingly, completely out of touch with what it means to be dealing with the economic realities of most Californians. There is info on how this initiative is