FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Contact: Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170
news0058@comcast.net
Occupy Sacramento says it will 'Occupy'
Rep. Dan Lungren's office Friday
with other area groups
SACRAMENTO - Occupy Sacramento, Move-On and other community groups are targeting Rep. Dan Lungren at his office Friday because of his votes that they charge hurt the 99%, and benefit the 1% who contribute to his campaigns.
Demonstrators expect to converge on Lungren's office FRIDAY (1/6/12) at 4 p.m. at 2339 Gold Meadow Way (Suite 220) in Gold River.
"We don't have to go to DC to sound off at this misguided US Congressman. We want to let him know what we think of his politics, and show him the consequences of voting against the people," said a spokesperson for the Move On group co-sponsoring the action.
Today the Sacramento Bee reported on Dan Lungren's latest conflict of interest. While Karl Rove's shadowy front group tries to bail out Lungren in a tough election, the Congressman advocates for unlimited corporate campaign spending. Even worse, if Lungren does win reelection and becomes Chairman of the House Administration Committee, he would have jurisdiction over campaign finance regulation -- Lungren would be responsible for regulating the same shadowy corporations that are funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to save him.
This news comes just one week after Karl Rove and Big Oil billionaires invaded our living rooms, laundering over $690,000 through Rove's shadowy slush fund, American Crossroads, hoping to hijack our election through false and misleading advertisements.
It's not surprising that Big Oil is protecting Lungren - he's taken $84,950 from oil and gas companies, then does their bidding in Congress - voting to give Big Oil $2.6 billion in tax breaks.
It's also not surprising that Karl Rove is working for Dan Lungren, since Lungren's opposition to transparency paved the way for American Crossroads. Lungren voted against the DISCLOSE Act to require transparency in corporate campaign spending, and applauded the Citizens United Supreme Court decision on the floor of the House. These actions set the stage for American Crossroads to launder billions from the mega corporations who are corrupting our government. Even more egregious, Lungren accepted $15,000 from Citizens United, and is even starring in an incendiary Citizens United film alongside Ann Coulter.
It's not surprising that Karl Rove and Big Oil want to keep Dan Lungren in Congress. But we have a surprise for them, because Rove and Lungren have forgotten the most important part of our democracy: you - and thousands of voters just like you. We don't support shadowy corporations polluting our democracy, and we won't stand by while Karl Rove tries to hijack our election.
You are the strongest weapon we have against American Crossroads, and we need you now. Please, support us in any way you can, and together, we will fight back against Karl Rove and his corporate billionaires, and we will bring the kind of change our country needs.
Congress made a quick break from their recess to vote for HR 1586, to which Carly Fiorina previously announced her opposition. The measure would provide substantial funding for teachers during this recession.
It is one thing to voice opposition, but it's another to do the deed and vote against retaining teachers for purely political reasons. And that's what we have with Mary Bono Mack, who today voted against HR 1586. Oh, and Mack was joined by the rest of the California Republican delegation. Well, save Dan Lungren who opted to walk out on the vote rather than casting that no vote. That's real political courage for you.
I'll simply ask the same question of these two Congress members that Robert asked of Fiorina: How can you explain to Californians why you believe 16,500 teachers should lose their jobs and why should kids be taught in overcrowded classrooms?
Last week, while talking on a radio interview, Rep. Dan Lungren was pulled over for speeding on his way to his office in DC. To make matters worse, apparently he was being rather unsafe with that cell phone of his. Dr. Bera, who is running for Congress against Lungren, delivered a bluetooth headset to the Congressman's office. Of course, Lungren got away with a warning from the police officer. Must be nice.
You probably know that talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in California. However, we should all strive to stay off the cell phone completely while driving. I'll admit to using my phone with my bluetooth on occasion, but the studies about this practice are really quite horrifying. Driving while talking on the cell phone yields drivers who are basically as bad as drunk driver. And that's with the handsfree.
There's a clear difference between how Dan Lungren and I view our responsibilities as leaders, Americans, and members of our community.
And this contrast is clearly illustrated in how we view the tragedy that is unfolding around the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
As a father, I have no greater responsibility than making sure I leave our world better for the next generation. As a doctor, it's my job to listen to my patients, understand their challenges, and work with them to make the necessary decisions. As a person of faith, I know it is our responsibility to protect and preserve the planet with the utmost of care.
If I'm elected to Congress, I know it is my obligation to represent your interests, and the interests of your children and grandchildren above the interests of corporate America. It's time we remove the corruption and greed that is grinding our government to a halt.
Together we can begin to chart a new path for America and a clearer future for our children.
That's the only way to explain why Dan stood silent in Congress while his colleague, Texas Rep. Joe Barton, offered an apology to BP and as the Republican Congressional policy group he's a member of called the compensation fund for victims of the oil disaster a "shakedown."
Dan had a choice: Stand up for his constituents, American taxpayers and those in the Gulf affected by this disaster, or do nothing. After taking more than $75,000 from the oil and gas industry, and as a leading supporter of off shore oil drilling, Dan's silence speaks volumes about who he's working for.
The sad truth is this: it's big corporations, not us.
As a doctor, I understand how actions can affect lives. What you say and do in a crisis matters. There isn't the luxury of remaining silent, or standing on the sidelines. There is a need for clear and decisive action. If I was in Congress, I would act to protect taxpayers and the environment; Dan chose to stay silent and avoid upsetting his campaign contributors.
That's the difference between Dan and me.
My campaign for Congress is about reaching out to our local communities to have a real, honest discussion about how to create jobs, improve our schools and make health insurance more affordable.
To be blunt, Dan's campaign is about taking care of his big corporate contributors. Instead of accepting invitations to debate the issues, he continues to hide behind handlers. Instead of saying where he stands and rising up to the challenges we face, Dan canceled joint appearances at the last minute - not once, but twice.
This is a far cry from the Dan Lungren who once said: "Let's have an old-fashioned Lincoln-Douglas style debate... Why can't we be without handlers? Why can't we just say who we are, what we are and what we stand for?" (Dan Lungren, Los Angeles Times, May 14, 1998 http://articles.latimes.com/19...
I agree with Dan on this point. That's why I have challenged him to a series of five debates, one in each county of the Third Congressional District.
The people deserve an open and honest debate on the issues that illustrate the choice they will have this November.
Will Dan have the character to answer his own question? Or will he just keep hiding behind his handlers and their negative attacks?
Either way, I invite you to learn more about my campaign at http://www.BeraforCongress.com. Tell me what you think and I hope you can join us for a house party where we can discuss the issues.
(Wow, CA-03 looks like it will be a top race to watch. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: Dan Lungren's data was just released, and once again Dr. Ami Bera has out raised Dan Lungren. This time, Bill Slaton has also outraised Lungren. Lungren raised $196,872.81 for a total of $443,718.52 Cash on hand. There are now two formidable opponents for Lungren. Unless the winning candidate drains his finances in the primary, Lungren will face a tough race in 2010.
It's 3rd Quarter fundraising number season for federal candidates, and the data is just beginning to trickle out in front of this week's deadline.
CA-03 is looking ever more intriguing, though. Dan Lungren pulled less than 50% in his 2008 victory over Bill Durston. However, Durston was always critically low on funding, and really didn't have the resources to get his message out.
However, if Dr. Ami Bera grabs the nomination, that will not happen this year. Bera, the former Chief Medical Officer for Sacramento County, released his fundraising results for the third quarter of 2009 today. Dr. Bera's campaign raised $335,443.00 between July 1st and September 30th. The campaign reported an impressive $585,787.00 in cash-on-hand at the end of the quarter.
Numbers for the other Democratic nominee, Bill Slaton, and Lungren are not yet available. Last quarter, Bera outraised Lungren, and was only behind in cash on hand by $36K. Slaton wasn't doing bad himself, but unless he really hit the gas on fundraising, Bera's big numbers might end up looking very formidable in a primary.
Money isn't everything, but for the Congressional campaign of a heretofore unknown candidate, you simply cannot win without substantial monetary resources.
I'll update with numbers from Slaton and Lungren when available.
UPDATE: Well, well, Slaton's numbers are also impressive. We might end up with an interesting primary in the district. From his press release:
Democratic candidate Bill Slaton reported adding $253,418 to his campaign coffers this quarter, bringing his total cash on hand to $398,506. Slaton, the SMUD Board Vice President, green energy advocate and entrepreneur, is running to challenge Republican Congressman Dan Lungren in California's 3rd District. 69% of the contributors are 3rd Congressional district residents.
All indications are that Gary Davis is dropping his bid for the 3rd Congressional District and switching to another run for Elk Grove City Council. Just a few minutes ago, I was alerted that his Facebook page had changed, and just after that was forwarded a copy of a newsletter from Gary Davis - Elk Grove City Council announcing his run for the council. The logo was even the same as his congressional campaign logo - changed to Elk Grove City Council - of course.
Davis had trouble keeping up with the other two candidates, Bill Slaton and Ami Bera, in fundraising. With Q3 just ending, obviously it wasn't happening for him, so he cut his losses.
Bera, a doctor who challenged incumbent Dan Lungren directly at a town hall meeting in August, has raised the most cash so far, but Slaton entered the race just a few weeks before last quarter's deadline, so we'll see.
While CQ Politics lists the CA-03 race as leans Republican, Lungren has not been offered help by national Republicans in their next campaign arm fundraiser. Only Mary Bono Mack of CA-45 figures in that fundraiser. That's probably more a function of Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet outraising Bono Mack last quarter - she needs the help more than Lungren in the money chase. But overall, I'd still mark CA-03 as a top target seat in 2010, with CA-45 next on the list. And Democrats know this.
Dr. Ami Bera approaches health care as one would expect of a doctor; with compassion and a desire to make well.
"I trained to be a physician to take care of people," he says. It's an attitude he will carry with him when we elect him to congress. Compassion, caring, a person centered approach to solving the very significant issues facing the American people is what we will get with Ami Bera.
"Health care is not a lottery," Bera told a group of about 50 people gathered in Rancho Cordova to hear his views on health care. But some people want to treat it that way. Health insurance is the ticket. If you have one, maybe you win something. If you don't - well, you don't.
Calitics doesn't allow my CSS formatting code for photos and text. Read the rest at California Notes.
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.
You can browse the Calitics live feed of the Governor's May "this is not a revise" Revise, if you're a glutton for punishment. Basically, Arnold used a taxpayer-funded press conference to scare the public into voting for his ballot measures, vowing to fill a $21 billion dollar budget gap with a mess of cuts, some borrowing, and no new revenues, in taxes or fees, suggesting that the majority-vote fee increase idea would get a veto. He's including cuts that would spur the loss of stimulus funds, with the caveat that he would sweet-talk the Obama Administration to allow the funds to go through despite the cuts. He's floating a raid of state and local governments. Essentially he's lined up fully with the right wing of the Yacht Party to drown the state and make it impossible to climb out of this recession. Calitics will have more coverage of this in the coming days.
So, with that, a bit of more promising news. The state's Congressional delegation will fight for a federal backstop for California's bonds. Well, at least the Democrats in the delegation.
"California faces a tremendous budget deficit and cash flow crisis, which requires immediate attention," said Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento. "There is no panacea for addressing California's budget issues at the federal level. However, it's time for the federal government to step in and temporarily guarantee bonds until the economy improves."
Matsui is working on a bill with Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Proponents say they're not asking Washington for a bailout, merely trying to lower the state's borrowing costs by having the federal government back its loans.
Critics say it would be a drastic mistake that would jeopardize the federal government's AAA credit rating, noting that California ranks as the worst credit risk among the 50 states.
"That's never been dhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifone, and I think it's never been done for good reason," said Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of Gold River.
He said the federal government can't afford to back bonds for every state, adding: "If California does it, other states are going to be standing in line, with New York right behind them."
Does Dan Lungren have a functioning brain? A federal backstop would cost the government $0.00 dollars. The guarantee would lower borrowing rates. The chances of the state defaulting on these loans is about 0.000001%. California has never done so in its history, as much as the Yacht Party would like it to happen (then they'd get the REAL reform, is I believe how it goes). Ultimately this would save the state $1 billion dollars in interest on these loans. The federal government has spent $700 billion on the same financial firms trying to gouge the state on these bonds. I think it's a fair trade.
Not that $1 billion is more than a drop in the bucket in the overall picture of things, but I figure you need a little sugar with your rainstorm...
There have been a few voices suggesting California Lt. Governor John Garamendi abandon his bid to replace Liebermanesque Ellen Tauscher and instead run in California's third congressional district against Dan Lungren.
And if you are a Democrat - especially a Progressive Democrat - that is good news. Strategically, such a move would be counterproductive for Democrats.
It Makes No Sense for California Democrats
The biggest problem in California is the Republican Veto. This means that Democrats may have a majority in the legislature, but not a functioning majority. With the artificial budget control by Republicans, it actually hurts Democrats if a legislator ascends to congress in a Special Election. With state Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan both running for Tauscher's seat, in all likelihood a Democratic legislator will win unless Garamendi runs.
With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay's 10th District - in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher. On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field - although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive. But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats - and progressive politics - for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren. Tauscher's seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3. He has deep roots in the 3rd District - which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi's native Calaveras County. It is traditionally a "red" district, but Barack Obama carried it last November - and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger. At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back "Red California," Garamendi's choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided. Expect this to become an issue at this weekend's State Democratic Convention.
Two of the eight "Obama Republicans," that is, members of the GOP delegation in the House whose districts went for Barack Obama in November, are in the news of late, and I think we can draw some conclusions about their behavior.
First of all, Dan Lungren held a "town hall meeting" in his district last week. I put "town hall meeting" in quotes because unlike actual town hall meetings, attendees weren't allowed to ask questions:
After a brief introduction by Elk Grove Mayor Patrick Hume, Lungren made it clear that the format of this 'townhall' meeting would not include direct questioning from the audience. Rather constituents were to fill out a questionnaire and submit for indirect questioning by Hume.
Lungren's reasoning was that he had received several constituent complaints that other district meetings were "so rambunctious" that they were afraid to come. To make the meeting open, Lungren said questions would be answered only by those filling out the questionnaires.
During the course of the meeting there were 15 questionnaires read covering a variety of topics, none of them pointed or very relative, in our opinion, to the staggering recession we find ourselves in. Lungren talked about his favorite topics of immigration, deficit spending and judiciary matters.
Hume, who had a table full of submitted questionnaires in front of him, never seemed to ask the questions as written. Hume was either being overly polite, or didn't want to incur the wrath of a congressman [...]
"If this is a townhall meeting, we should be allowed to be allowed to make comments," said Elk Grove resident Mike Monasky. Immediately Monasky was loudly told by city charter commission member Christopher Orrock to be quiet.
Now there's someone who doesn't want to be held accountable by his constituents. That makes the Bush "town hall meetings" look like free-for-alls.
Then there's Buck McKeon. His home in Santa Clarita was burglarized. We're sorry for him and his wife. But we did not expect McKeon to push a political angle.
A thief, who has since been arrested, broke into the McKeons' home on the morning of March 4 and stole jewelry from the master bedroom, said Bob Haueter, McKeon's 2010 campaign manager. The rest of the home was not disturbed, he said [...]
The burglary was mentioned in a McKeon fundraising letter, dated March 25, that discussed McKeon's opposition to the Employee Free-Choice Act - a bill that would make it easier for workers to unionize. The legislation is backed by President Barack Obama, whose political roots are in Chicago.
The letter says the labor legislation is "right out of Stalin's playbook" and part of the president's "socialist agenda." A note at the bottom of the letter, written by Patricia McKeon, read:
"As if things couldn't get any worse, our home was just broken into while we were in D.C. Some observant neighbors were able to identify the thieves and get the license plate number of the car they used.
"You won't believe this; the car is registered to a person in Chicago! Just know this, no matter what happens to us, Buck and I won't back down."
Are you kidding me? Apparently we're to believe that President Obama has a cadre of thieves he's dispatching across the country to Republican homes. While I admit that would be a simply ingenious strategy (note to Patricia McKeon: I'm joking), I simply don't think he's concerning himself with an underworld network.
Can we conclude that these two are maybe just a little bit scared, as they see their stranglehold on their districts slipping away?
The latest report of registration, current up to February 2010, shows that voters have continued to register Democratic in higher numbers even since the general election. There are now 17.3 million registered voters, 74.4% of all eligible adults, and Democrats have a 2.32 million vote advantage over Republicans. By the percentages, the state consists of 44.52% Democrats, 31.14% Republicans, and 19.99% decline to state, with smaller parties rounding out the rest of the voters.
2010 is the last year before a new census and new district lines, so the district-level numbers only apply for the next election cycle. Still, a close reading makes clear where Democrats should be focusing their registration efforts and resources for the next year.
In Congress, there are two Republican-held seats where Republicans hold less than 40% of the registration share, seen as a key dividing line. Those are Dan Lungren's CA-03 (39.7% Republican-37.7% Democratic) and, surprisingly, Buck McKeon's CA-25 (39.7% Republican-39.2% Democratic), which has changed dramatically over the past few years and could be ripe for a well-funded, legitimate challenger. Obama won that district 50-48 as well. With only 351,421 registered voters in CA-25, there are additional non-voters waiting to be registered there to tighten up those numbers even further. CA-19 also has a shortfall of voters which could lead to a tightening of the rolls.
In the State Senate, the only even-numbered seat (the ones up for election in 2010) that deserves a focus is SD-12, where Jeff Denham is termed out. There are 47.5% registered Democrats and 33.1% registered Republicans. Democrats in that region are fairly conservative, and so there may not be a progressive coming out of that district, but there's no reason on Earth why Democrats shouldn't own that seat. Especially since there may be 100,000 unregistered voters out there.
As for the Assembly, the numbers look good in AD-05, AD-26 (Dems have a 42-39 lead in registration), AD-30 and AD-36, with a few other marginal possibilities based solely on the voter reg. numbers (AD-38, AD-63, AD-64, and AD-65 come to mind). There is absolutely a path to pick up three seats and a 2/3 majority in the Assembly, if the net is cast wide enough.
Of course, oftentimes Democratic officials focus too much, in my view, on voter registration statistics, and shoudl recruit good candidates and give them the resources they need to compete instead. But in this off-year, registration stats offer an opportunity to determine where to target. You can dig through them yourself at the Secretary of State's page.
House Republicans apparently think that losing 50 seats over two cycles is change they can believe in, as they signed up John Boehner as Minority Leader for two more years, resisting a challenge from Dan Lungren.
While Randy Bayne considers this a bright spot for Bill Durston and his effort to beat Lungren in 2010, I have the opposite view. Being Minority Leader would have put a major target on Lungren's back. Now he can slink back into quiet anonymity and not raise the ire of his constituency, which is rapidly growing more Democratic.
On another note, how can House Republicans possibly think that Boehner has done a good job these last two years to warrant a return engagement? Fortunately, that's their problem.
...in other news about local Congresscritters, Barbara Lee is now the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Lynn Woolsey has retained her co-chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House, along with Arizona's Raul Grijalva.
The rumors are true. Dan Lungren is going to mount a leadership challenge to John Boehner, with a vote expected this week.
Brilliant. It's fitting that the Republicans could pick as a leader a guy who couldn't get 50% in his own district. Bill Durston, already slated to run in 2010, could become a very important figure for the next two years.
California Rep. Dan Lungren is considering a challenge to House Minority Leader John Boehner for his leadership position.
Several House conservatives have courted Lungren in the past two days, seeking change in leadership after demoralizing losses in Tuesday's election and two years of tussling with Boehner over earmarks, spending and most recently the $700 billion financial rescue package.
I know that Republicans are deeply in denial and all, but Dan Lungren? He didn't break 50% in his Congressional election on Tuesday, winning by only 13,700 votes, and if anything, the district is trending away from him. The registration advantage is a thin 2.2%, and after two years of more organizing that's likely to be even. And Bill Durston is going to run for a third time in 2010.
Republicans in Democratic-trending districts often win by making few waves in Washington and running away from party ID. There is absolutely no chance that a House Minority Leader could do that. He'd be well-known to the district and the nation. Whether successful or not, every Democrat and Democratic-leaning independent would know where Dan Lungren stands on the issues. There wouldn't be any low-information voters left. And national groups would be encouraged to knock off the Republican leader in the House. Remember that Durston got pretty much no meaningful help from any progressive organization in 2008 and still managed a close 5-point loss, improving his position by 13 points from one election to the next.
Please, oh please, Republican caucus, do this. Let's see Dan Lungren have two years in the spotlight before we knock him out.
As we chew our nails waiting for the Brown - McClintock results and vacilate wildly between reflecting on how we lost on Prop. 8 and simply feeling the pain of that loss, some good news came out of CA-03.
While Dan Lungren beat Bill Durston, silver lining in that defeat abounds. For starters, Durston made serious inroads since the previous match-up. The final tally will likely end up 49-44, a relatively small margin - especially compared to two years ago, when Durston ran as a virtual unknown. He ended up only pulling down 37 percent of the vote in 2006, meaning that in two short years Durston went from a 22-point margin to a 5-point margin. Makes you feel a little cocky about 2010, huh?
Speaking of 2010, Durston just announced he will run again in two years, setting up what should be a tight race that we will have a real chance of taking. In fact, our chances may be much greater: progressives won't have the Obama campaign taking up all their time and money; if we're lucky, Brown will be comfortably defending his seat against a weaker candidate, needing less resources; and as readers of this site know, Lungren can be counted on to pull at least a few idiotmoves in the next two years.
As our president-elect said on election night, the fight has just begun. Let's get ready for 2010, folks.
