It isn't clear where Brad Sherman and Howard Berman will run for re-election. However, as it stands right now, there are pretty good odds that they are destined for a Dem-on-Dem bloodbath. Sherman, who is sitting on $4 million in his campaign account, put out the first volley in the form of a poll showing a nice lead:
Congressman Brad Sherman is the likely winner of the election in the new 30th congressional district. These are the results of a just completed survey in the new congressional district from initial match-ups with no information given about either candidate:
Three-way race:
Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat: 42%
Businessman Mark Reed, Republican: 26%
Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat: 17%
Two-way race:
Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat: 51%
Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat: 24%
Sherman currently represents just over half the voters in the new 30th CD. Sherman is strong in his current district (CD27), winning 52 percent support there in the three way match-up with only 9 percent for Berman and 24 percent for Reed. In contrast, Berman barely ekes out a plurality in the less than a quarter of the district that he currently represents (CD28), leading Sherman by only 32 percent to 30 percent, while Reed draws 21 percent support.
Whether this election comes to pass is still up in doubt, but there is no question that Sherman is preparing for it.
There are conflicting reports on a bipartisan deal on the Wall Street bailout, but I want to focus on a couple of our Democratic lawmakers who are doing a great job on this so far.
Brad Sherman, who has been a leading voice against the piece of crap Paulson plan, reports that phone calls are running 300 to 2 against the bailout. His plan calls for a much smaller price tag, along with homeowner aid. Sherman notes:
Interpreting the twisted political ways of Washington, Sherman said the plan is so unpopular that the only way it will pass is if Congress pushes it through this weekend -- before members return to their districts and realize how hated the bailout is.
It is unacceptable for Democrats to carry this bill forward and be stuck with the political consequences. It's completely unclear whether or not it will work, and without serious changes it's basically a gift to Wall Street executives with nothing for those who are struggling. Keep the pressure on by letting your lawmakers know that they need to be showing leadership like Reps. Sherman and Stark.
...UPDATE: Asm. Ted Lieu has a good statement too, connecting this to the need for the Governor to sign AB 1830, the mortgage bill. I'll also put that on the flip.
Democratic MEMBERS Meeting on Bailout Plan, TODAY, Room 2220, 2:30-3:30pm
From: The Honorable Brad Sherman
Date: 9/22/2008
Skeptical About the
Administration's $700 Billion Bailout Plan?
Democratic Members Meeting
Room 2220
2:30-3:30 P.M.
Dear Democratic Colleague:
Are you skeptical about the $700 billion bailout bill? Let's meet in Room 2220 on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Come to the first and perhaps only meeting of the Skeptics Caucus to discuss President Bush's $700 billion bailout bill. Democratic Members and Senior Staff only.
Bring specific legislative proposals. I will be bringing legislative proposals to carry out the principles set forth in the letter below. If you have questions about this meeting, please contact me or my Legislative Director and Counsel, Gary Goldberg, at xyz.
Sincerely,
Brad Sherman
Member of Congress
I would expect this out of a Barbara Lee or Maxine Waters, but coming from Sherman, this means that rank and file Democrats are very wary of getting steamrolled by the Bush Administration and let a major chunk of the Federal treasury flow out of their control. Sherman is pretty middle-of-the-road as Democrats go, squarely in the mainstream of the party if not to the right of the mainstream, not a guy who's out in front a lot and not (to my knowledge) a member of the Progressive Caucus. I've met him a couple times out here in California and he seemed OK, but not exactly the guy I'd expect to go to war with. If Sherman is marching (pardon the pun), there's a very large skeptic's caucus, I'd gather. And Sherman's prescriptions for a better bill (available at the link) are really good.
"We must take action to keep our whole economy from collapsing. But if the plan by the Treasury which has leaked out today is genuine, then it's unclear if the plan will work at all.
"Add in a massive transfer of authority to the executive branch, with no congressional oversight or judicial review, and this plan should be dead on arrival.
"Handing over taxpayer money to the government with no oversight is always a bad idea and it's especially rotten given the current administration's track record."
And Rep. Hilda Solis, traveling with netroots favorite Annette Taddeo in South Florida, released a great statement as well, connecting this fiscal crisis to the effort to privatize Social Security:
"Three years ago, President Bush and rubberstamps in Congress like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen fought hard to privatize Social Security. From the floor of Congress, Ros-Lehtinen said that she "applauded the President for his strong leadership and vision" and that she wanted to "reform Social Security to include private accounts. Had George W. Bush and rubberstamps in Congress had their way, today's financial crisis would be a full-blown emergency. Tens of millions of seniors around the country, including hundreds of thousands here in South Florida, would have lost their pensions overnight."
It's time for an "all-hands-on-deck" approach. Call your Representatives and tell them you don't want to give a blank check for $700 billion dollars to the guys who messed up Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
This one is a bit out of my price range, but I did want to let all Southern California readers know that Congressman Brad Sherman is hosting a reception for Charlie Brown on Wednesday, August 20th, at 7pm in Beverly Hills. Presuming Charlie is present, of course, it would be a good opportunity for anyone who hasn't gotten the pleasure of meeting him in person to finally do so (and throw in some money to the campaign, for those who can afford it!).
So as to protect the privacy of the hosts, I will refrain from posting the address details here. But to RSVP or get more information, call or send an email to Scott Abrams in Sherman's office:
The following California Democrats caved on retroactive immunity and disregarded their oath to, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic":
Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Pelosi, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Ellen Tauscher
Pete Stark did not vote. This is the list of those who are potential targets of the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity which as of now has raised $310,673 to, "fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps." This money isn't going to send thank you cards to the members who did defend the constitution, this is primary money and cold cash to dump Steny Hoyer from leadership (Rahm Emanuel also capitulated).
As the battle moves to the Senate, all eyes are on Barack Obama nationally and Dianne Feinstein locally [(202) 224-3841].
As for 2010 primaries, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Carole Migden's 3rd place finish showed that entrenched politics matters less in a modern media environment. Ellen Tauscher is again practically begging to be primaried and in that district she's walking on thin ice. Joe Baca deserves particular scorn as the only Californian to sign the Blue Dog letter to Pelosi pushing capitulation (and a primary of Baca could probably receive significant institutional support from former members of the Hispanic Caucus). McNerney has outdone himself in contracting a full-blown case of Potomic Fever during his first term, every time he makes a move I think about asking for a refund. And Harman and Berman voting to cover-up warrantless wiretapping isn't going to do much to quell the rumors that they are pushing this because they are worried about their own culpability on the issue.
If you live in one of this districts, please call your member and ask them why. Comments and diaries with responses are highly encouraged.
Advocacy group Families USA has put out a shocking report (PDF), "Dying For Coverage," detailing how Californians are impacted by a lack of health insurance. The number "47 million" that designates Americans without health insurance is too abstract and detached from meaning. Californians are dying because of their inability to afford or acquire insurance.
• Families USA estimates that more than eight working-age Californians die each day
due to lack of health insurance (approximately 3,100 people in 2006).
• Between 2000 and 2006, the estimated number of adults between the ages of 25
and 64 in California who died because they did not have health insurance was
nearly 19,900.
•Across the United States, in 2006, twice as many people died from lack of health
insurance as died from homicide.
The factors that lead to death include: 1) a lack of preventive care and screening, 2) unnecessary delays for medical care because of affordability concerns, 3) no access to care outside an emergency room, and more.
Some of our Democratic members of Congress have commented on the report.
"This new Families USA study highlights a sad statistic that more people in our country died from lack of health insurance than from homicide between 2000-2006," U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said today. "In California alone, nearly 20,000 people in that time frame died because of being uninsured."
"Our nation has more people in jail than anywhere else in the world in its effort to combat crime," Stark said. "Yet, we allow 47 million people to go without health insurance-which translates into going without needed medical care-each year. It's time to take action and combat the real killer in our country-the lack of universal health care."
"It is appalling and irresponsible that more than eight working-age Californians die due to lack of health insurance each day," U.S. Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) said today. "In California , 60 percent of the uninsured are Latinos, which means that nearly five Latinos die each day because we cannot ensure access to quality, affordable health care."
"I am fighting in Congress to improve the health of communities of color and strongly support improving access to health care for all populations," Solis said.
When Republicans talk about "cost control" in medical care, they want a world very much like this. They believe that the problem with health insurance is that people have too much of it. They would rather it be limited and used only when necessary, and they would rather Americans hold out and comparison shop when they are ill or infirm. In other words, the conservative vision of health care aligns with the for-profit insurance company vision which directly leads to 8 dead Californians every single day.
As we pick up the pieces from the failure of health care reform from earlier this year, this powerful report shows the dire need to repair the broken system and ensure affordable care for everyone.
There is a huge fight right now to fix the FISA bill, with a new one called "The RESTORE Act" (H.R. 3773). Two big issues: 1) Will they include language that let's the FBI issue blanket, rather than targeted warrants? 2) Will they give immunity to the phone companies who broke the law because Bush told them too? The bill is up in the House and the final language is a moving target. It is the crucial time to get in touch with people who might be persuaded to ensure good language goes to the floor for a vote.
The bill caves in to Bush's fear-mongering in a major way: it does NOT required the government to get an individual warrant before wiretapping Americans' phones and emails. Instead, it allows for program or basket "warrants," which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever.
One good thing is that the bill doesn't yet include immunity for telecom companies that broke the law by handing over Americans' private communications to the government, but we're hearing immunity could be added back to the bill at any time.
Here are a few folks I know need to hear from you. Give them a ring. It is much more effective than sending email, though you can do that too.
CA-29 Adam Schiff Schiff 2022254176
CA-14 Anna Eshoo Eshoo 2022258104
CA-27 Brad Sherman Sherman 2022255911
CA-28 Howard Berman Berman 2022254695
CA-39 Linda Sanchez Sanchez 2022256676
CA-35 Maxine Waters Waters 2022252201
CA-01 Mike Thompson Thompson 2022253311
CA-08 Nancy Pelosi Pelosi 2022254965
CA-16 Zoe Lofgren Lofgren 2022253072
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry's 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she's still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, "moderate" Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she's still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she's being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I'll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new "when the chips are down" scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA's congressional delegation, in descending order.
I'm guessing that at tonight's Calitics' Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house -- wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
