Breaking yesterday through Twitter and evolving since, Congressman Bob Filner has apparently made an official public announcement that he'll be running for mayor of San Diego.
As campaign roll-outs go, it wasn't the most elegant beginning, and the legitimate process story continues to bubble up. A full launch can still be done in the future without losing significant impact, but in the meantime, the story and its continued unfolding underscores that the horserace has begun no matter what, and the vacuum will be filled.
While some will continue to hash through the reliability of information and the 'is he REALLY?' sideshow, what is clear is that Filner is now considered a part of the mayoral race; which means there's a Democrat in the race, which means that two sides are presumed in discussion of mayoral issues.
It's a big deal in San Diego, because we haven't had two full-strength sides engaged in a city-wide debate in a number of years. It didn't happen during last year's Prop D campaign. It didn't happen in the 2008 mayoral race when Democrats failed to field a viable candidate. The 2004 mayoral race turned into the fluke three-way race between Republicans Dick Murphy and Ron Roberts and last-minute write-in Democrat Donna Frye. You would have to go back more than a decade for the last time we've had a legitimate campaign addressing the comprehensive future of the city in which both major parties were seriously engaged.
Filner's entry into the discussion addresses that, because he has the experience and personal campaign infrastructure to overcome existing deficiencies that have hamstrung previous efforts at a full-scale, two-sided debate about the issues that face this city.
And that means that this isn't just a referendum anymore on Republican candidates. Not on Councilmember Carl DeMaio's extreme views, or whether Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher has the clout to stand up to downtown developers. Nor is it just musing over whether District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis can indulge enough of her moderate tendencies to pick up establishment Democrats. It's a real debate.
Now we can have a stronger conversation about how pension reform doesn't have to be debilitating to be effective. About how we don't have to stop investing in the basic quality of life for our neighborhoods to put our fiscal house in order. That we can remain committed to smart development and addressing blight without handing over the keys of city hall to developers.
Looking forward a bit to the musical chairs, newly-elected State Senator Juan Vargas (40th) is expected to run for Filner's vacated seat (Vargas previously challenged Filner in the primary), and newly-elected Assemblymember Ben Hueso (79th) is expected to be among those aiming to succeed Vargas. So the fun will hardly be contained moving forward.
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here's what version 2 looks like, overall:
I decided to try my hand at redistricting California's Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave's Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here's what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here's the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
Also Saturday, California's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from its Feb. 5 primary. Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, raising her state total to 204; Obama gained five, raising his figure to 166.
Well, the AP made a mistake -- but it's not in the numbers. The California Democratic Party did not finalize the delegate counts. The California Secretary of State finalized the election results. Maybe it's semantics, but I think it's an important notation to make.
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.
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) was involved in an altercation last night at Dulles Airport. He was allegedly angered by the amount of time it was taking to get his luggage and tried to push his way through the United Airlines baggage claim office.
....
The individual allegedly attempted to enter an area authorized for airline employees only, pushed aside the employee's outstretched arm and refused to leave the area when asked by an airline employee. When MWAA officers arrived a few minutes later, the man had left the office and was waiting in the area of a bag carousel. ... The airline employee appeared before a Loudoun County Magistrate later that evening and a summons was obtained charging Robert Filner (DOB 09/04/1942) with assault and battery, a class 1 misdemeanor.
Leading up to the election last November, Chris Bowers initiated the Use It or Lose It project, urging unopposed members of Congress to contribute their money to the DCCC in support of other competitive races. In addition, I found 64 more districts with token opposition (Republican had raised less than $10,000 total). California's districts, safely drawn as many of them are, were well represented on these two lists, and while many of California's Democrats were very supportive, not all of them were. Our representatives have a responsibility to support the party as a whole whenever possible, and sitting on piles of cash is both a waste and a betrayal of good faith. Here's a look at how the delegation performed so that we can start applying pressure where necessary.
In another primary battle involving a seven-term incumbent, Bob Filner is facing a challenge from two Latino Congressional hopefuls. Juan Vargas currently represents the 79th AD and is termed out this year. Thus, this is another term limits inspired fight. Danny Ramirez is a perennial candidate in this race, and shouldn't be much of a factor this year with a serious Latino candidate in the race.
Filner has been one of the more liberal voices in Congress. On immigration he received an "F-" from the Americans for Better Immigration (that's a good thing). He received an "A" From the NAACP, 95% by the League of Conservation Voters, 100% by NARAL, and a 100 from the HRC.
Hispanics, many of them recent arrivals to California, make up just more than half of the 51st District’s population. So while many Americans favor building a tall wall to slow the influx of illegal immigrants, not many of them live in the California district that would be most affected.
The demographics of the 51st District are, however, at the very heart of the primary challenge to Filner. Primary voters are being asked — and not for the first time — whether Filner’s good relations with his Hispanic constituency and strongly liberal voting record justifies his re-election, or if the fact that Filner is a non-Hispanic white makes him an impediment to Latino empowerment. (CQ Politics 6/1/06)
Vargas has run against Filner for this seat before. In 1992, when Filner first won, Vargas was a San Diego City Councilman, but lost his Congressional bid. So now Vargas is attempting to see if the gains in Hispanic voters in the district will be sufficient to win the seat. Filner is managing to get most of the endorsements from Latino organizations, and the split in any identity voters caused by Ramirez’s presence on the ballot should propel Filner to a comfortable victory. However, Vargas has run a decent campaign and he has a history in the district.
Back in December, we wanted to know why Representative Duncan Hunter (CA-52) wanted to steal a national park and turn in back over to a private trophy hunting concession? Under intense pressure from Democrats and environmental groups, Hunter dropped his proposal to steal California's Santa Rosa Island (part of the Channel Islands National Park) from the American people. This December raid was his second attempt to allow the private hunting concession to remain in charge of the island and exclude the public from the park.
Well, Hunter, who heads the Armed Services Committee, is back with a new proposal to insure that the public is excluded from the park that our tax dollars paid for, while hunting activities continue on the island. This time he is attaching the proposal to the Department of Defense authorization bill. A bit of an earmark for the trophy hunting concession on the island.
Last year, Hunter wanted to annex the island completely and turn its operation over to the Department of the Navy. The commercial hunting business would be allowed to remain, but provisions would be made for the military and disabled veterans to use the island's facilities for hunting. Why the military and disabled veterans couldn't be allowed to use any of the millions of acres of public land already under government management is unclear. Or, why these same military hunters couldn't be accommodated on the other millions of acres of land under the control of the Department of Defense was equally unclear.
Hunter wants Santa Rosa Island and he wants the commercial business on that island to continue. His latest proposal leaves the island under the control of the Department of the Interior, but it abrogates the original agreement between the island's previous owners and commercial hunting concessionaire that would end the hunting operation in 2011.
In effect, Hunter's new proposal turns the island into a private hunting preserve under government sponsorship. In this case the general public would be excluded from the island for safety reasons, while trophy hunters would be free to use the facilities. Military hunters, disabled veterans and members of congress would also have access to the hunter facilities.
Once again, Democrats, enviromentalist and the National Park Service are trying to stop Hunter's land grab.
Hunter's proposal angered Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), whose district includes Santa Rosa Island. Capps' aides distributed the bill language to reporters Monday.
"This is Chairman Hunter's third attempt in less than a year to exclude the public from accessing the national park that they paid $30 million for. The issue of Santa Rosa Island has no place in the defense authorization bill," Capps said.
"I am firmly opposed to this unilateral effort and will join hands with Republicans, Democrats and environmentalists to ensure the island is not turned into a private reserve," Feinstein said.
[...]
"Saying it is more important to have an opportunity to hunt a trophy animal that doesn't even belong on the island than to protect the other species in the park, to me that's what's fairly disturbing about this," said Russell Galipeau, the park superintendent.
Why is Hunter obsessed with this project? With so many other alternatives, why does Hunter persist in trying to steal a national park from U.S. taxpayers and give to back to a commercial trophy hunting operation?
