Meet the new board

Bruin Democrats elections were tonight, and here's your brand spankin' new board!

President: Jesse Melgar
External VP: Navid Pour-Ghasemi
Internal VP: Brandon Harrison
Treasurer: Anna Scudder
Fundraising: Chris Ah San
Events: Sonya Mehta
Issues: Flavia de la Fuente
Publicity: Sonja Weaver-Madsen
Social: Jessica Blatchley

A big round of thanks to all those that ran for office!

Darrell Issa: 9/11 "simply was an aircraft"

Didja guys hear what Republican Congressman Darrell Issa said two weeks ago? Probably not, the media quickly buried this story.

San Diego GOP Rep. Darrell Issa was under siege for suggesting the federal government had already done enough to help New York cope with "a fire" that "simply was an aircraft" hitting the World Trade Center.

"That is a pretty distorted view of things," said Frank Fraone, a Menlo Park, Calif., fire chief who led a 67-man crew at Ground Zero. "Whether they're a couple of planes or a couple of missiles, they still did the same damage."

"New York was attacked by Al Qaeda. It doesn't have to be attacked by Congress," added Long Island Rep. Pete King, a Republican.

"I'm really surprised by Darrell Issa," King added. "It showed such a cavalier dismissal of what happened to New York. It's wrong and inexcusable."

Lorie Van Aucken, who lost her husband, Kenneth, in the attacks, slammed Issa's "cruel and heartless" comments.

"It's really discouraging. People stepped up and did the right thing. They sacrificed themselves and now a lot of people are getting really horrible illnesses," she added.

Under pressure from all sides, the Golden State pol - who got rich selling car alarms after getting busted for car theft as a teen - pulled a partial U-turn. He issued a statement but cowered from the press.

"I continue to support federal assistance for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks," he said.

But he didn't retract his wacked-out rhetoric claiming the feds "just threw" buckets of cash at New York for an attack "that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it."

He went on: "I have to ask ... why the firefighters who went there and everybody in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration."

In his statement yesterday, Issa insisted he only "asked tough questions about the expenditures" during a hearing Tuesday on an aid bill for sick New Yorkers.

"He realized he stepped in it," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-Manhattan), who was leading the hearing when Issa popped off.

"The sound I'm hearing is him slamming the brakes and going in reverse," crowed Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn-Queens). Issa also belatedly admitted 9/11 was "an attack on America" in his statement.

It shouldn't have been that hard.

He took to the floor of Congress on Sept. 11, 2001, to argue passionately that America - not just New York - had been attacked, but conveniently forgot that during his Tuesday diatribe.

"It seems that with the passage of time, something happened along the way where the scope of the problem and the real extent of the problem has not drifted out to California," fumed Staten Island GOP Rep. Vito Fossella.

Health officials estimate it could cost $1 billion to care properly for the ailments that may emerge in the people who lived through the horror of Sept. 11 or breathed that toxic dust.

Interestingly enough, the same right-wing that went into histrionics over the "Betrayus" ad has been strangely silent on Issa's remarks. And so too is the traditional media. There's absolutely nothing on his despicable comments about this on CNN at all, neither on their website nor on the channel itself. Fox News ran the wire story about this on their website, but I haven't seen one mention of this on the actual channel itself. The only mention on MSNBC was from Keith Olbermann's show, where he gave Issa Worst Person in the World Hall of Fame honors.



Now for those who say Issa actually has a point in regards to federal vs. state funding, OK, but then, why did Issa in the same week he made those comments trumpet his list of $26.8 million worth of earmarks for San Diego? Sure, some look to be deserving projects, but why, given his opinions, should they be funded by the federal government?

As Steve Benen suggests, what if a Democrat had made those comments about denying first responders and victims' families federal funds? Even with the Obama-Clinton primary coverage, you can bet that piece of news would've been plastered on the front of every single cable news show for the next five days. But, if you're a Republican? Eh, gets buried. Maybe mentioned once. Never mentioned again. I mean, how many of you reading this right now even knew Issa had made such despicable comments at all?

FYI, Issa's Democratic opponent in November is UCLA grad and former Naval officer Robert Hamilton.

CA-12: Jackie Speier goes to Congress

Former state senator Jackie Speier (D) easily won the special election on Tuesday to replace the late Tom Lantos (D) for the remainder of this current session of Congress. (There's another primary election on June 3rd to determine who will be each party's nominee for November, which Jackie should again win quite easily.) Speier had lost a close race in the Democratic primary to John Garamendi for Lt. Governor in 2006. Garamendi went on to beat UCLA grad Tom McClintock (now carpetbagging in CA-04 to replace the corrupt John Doolittle) in the general election.

But what's amazing about Speier is her life story. She survived the 1978 Jonestown massacre. If you wondered where the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" came from, it was from this, where over 900 cult members who followed Jim Jones from San Francisco to Guyana committed murder-suicide by drinking Flavor Aid laced with poison. (Yeah, it wasn't actually Kool-Aid, but the phrase stuck.)

This 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article tells part of the hell Speier had to endure.

There is a compartment in Jackie Speier's mind where she stores away the old memories of her fact-finding trip to the cult compound of Jonestown.

When it opens, all the agony comes rushing back: She is there on the oppressively humid jungle airstrip in her polka-dot sundress and platform shoes, a congressional aide with clipboard in hand, rushing anxious defectors onto a waiting plane. Then the ambush, as Jonestown's henchmen open fire.

She feels five bullets pierce her body, one blowing away a huge chunk of her thigh. She sees her boss and mentor, Rep. Leo Ryan, dead on the tarmac. She chills as flies and mosquitoes buzz around her wounds. She sips rum to deaden the searing pain. Left for dead with a handful of other wounded survivors throughout the night, she thinks of her parents back in the Bay Area and tape records them a farewell message.

On the cataclysmic night of Nov. 18, 1978, the Rev. Jim Jones dispatched the death squad to the airstrip and then led more than 900 of his flock -- most of them from the Bay Area and about a third of them children -- into a "white night" that became the worst mass murder/suicide in modern history.

Chilling. Here's the TIME magazine article from December 1978 if you want to learn more about that horrific story and how she survived. And if the people of San Francisco didn't suffer enough that month, just nine days after the massacre, ex-supervisor Dan White murdered San Fracisco mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. Now-Senator Dianne Feinstein was the one who discovered Milk's body, and was later sworn in as mayor to replace Moscone.

Update: Wow, when Speier was sworn in on Thursday in Congress, Republicans actually started booing her when she spoke about Iraq in her first speech in front of Congress.

For a few feel-good moments Thursday, Jackie Speier basked in bipartisan warmth, sworn in as the newest member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her family, supporters and schoolchildren cheered as she embraced her new colleagues.

Then, in her first speech in Congress, she spoke out about Iraq. Applause turned to boos and hoots on the Republican side of the aisle.

"When will we get out of Iraq?" was the most frequent question she heard, she told the House, while campaigning in the special election she won Tuesday to succeed the late Rep. Tom Lantos.

"The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately," she said, as several Republicans loudly booed and some Democrats cheered. Rep. Darrell Issa, a Vista Republican, bolted from his seat and left the floor.

The hoots grew in volume as Speier, a San Mateo Democrat, continued: "The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years" - a reference to Republican John McCain's assertion that U.S. forces could be in Iraq indefinitely if they are not taking casualties.

"But history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one," she said to a mixture of cheers and boos.

"The House is not in order," shouted Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. Speaker Nancy Pelosi banged her gavel. "Why are they booing my mother?" Speier's 13-year-old daughter, Stephanie, asked, according to a staffer.

Classy, those Republicans. I'll have more on Darrell Issa's latest scumbaggery in a future post.

A look at the California House races

February 5th is long gone, so let's turn our attention to the House races here in California. Unlike two years ago, which Kyle referred to as "a tidal wave sweeping the country... and crashing in California", this time we really have the opportunity to take out some of the most reactionary House Republicans and replace them with good progressive Democrats. Especially in Orange County, Bruin Dems living there really have a chance to make our voices heard, with real competitive races. You can take an active part this summer in helping out these campaigns. Volunteers are always welcome, and who knows, a job may await too.

So, here are the key California House races, with the biggest one ranked first, and so on. And yes, I admit, I cribbed a lot of the info from dday here.

1. CA-04: This will be a big race in the northeastern part of California. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown barely fell short against the ethics-plauged incumbent Republican John Doolittle in 2006, losing 49%-46%. Since then, in the wake of numerous investigations into his connections with Jack Abramoff and Brent Wilkes, Doolittle decided to retire, opening up his seat. This opened up the floodgates, and now there's a bitter GOP primary battle between former moderate Congressman Doug Ose, who represented CA-03, and the far-right Tom McClintock, who unsuccessfully ran for Governor in the 2003 recall election, and lost the Lt. Gov. race to John Garamendi in 2006. McClintock's a UCLA grad, sadly. He's already painting Ose as a "liberal", LOL. And in a show of hypocrisy, as McClintock sells himself as a fiscal conservative who opposes government spending, but has gotten over $300,000 in tax-free per diem money. In other words, he's basically a "welfare queen". And a carpetbagger too. He actually lives in Thousand Oaks, here in Southern California. It's one thing for Ose, whose district used to include part of what is now CA-04, but for someone 400 miles south of the district?

The NRCC may want to tread carefully in attacking Brown. In 2006, they did the obvious Peanuts reference, which didn't sit well with Charles Schulz's son, with lawyers getting involved for copyright infringement. Good grief! And Charlie Brown has gotten the endorsement of veterans groups like VoteVets. Brown is actually donating 5% of all his campaign contributions to help veterans and their families. Now, it's still a conservative district, with a Cook PVI of R+11 (meaning Bush got 11% more of the vote share here than he did nationally in the last two elections) and only 44.7% Democratic turnout on February 5th.

Here are two good clips of an interview with Brown from last week's state convention in San Jose, courtesy of the folks from Calitics.





2. CA-26: David Dreier's had enough of a free ride in this district. Businessman Russ Warner looks to be the guy who can unseat him. While you may think this is a hardcore Republican district, on February 5th, 50.2% of those who voted in this district voted in the Democratic primary. Remember, the GOP race at that time was still up in the air. And with Dreier somehow forgetting to report earnings on stock sales for the last couple years, it's no surprise he voted AGAINST stronger ethics rules in the House. And Dreier also took money from the sub-prime lender Countrywide, and then proceeded to vote against lending reforms. Typical.

I talked with both Russ and his son Greg, who served in Iraq for 17 months, at the convention in San Jose last week. These are good people. This is also a DCCC targeted seat, which means the national organization also finds Warner to be a strong candidate. Warner has raised over $500,000 for his campaign, the most ever raised by any opponent to Dreier since he first got elected in 1980. He said the DCCC announcement was a great Christmas gift, as they told him they were targeting the race two days before Christmas. Since then, when he's "dialing for dollars", the wallets have been opening up once he mentions the national party's interest in this race. Watch for this race as summer approaches, it will become a big deal. In the meantime, here's an excellent in-depth interview via Calitics of Russ Warner from last week's convention.



3. CA-46: Finally, someone may finally unseat the odious Dana Rohrabacher. This is a man who has close ties with the Taliban, claims global warming is due to dinosaur flatulence, told those opposed to torture that "I hope it's your families, I hope it's your families that suffer the consequences", called Blackwater CEO Erik Prince an "American hero" (he was a former staffer for Rohrabacher), and gave Jack Abramoff his first break in becoming one of the biggest and shadiest lobbyists on the Hill.

In other words, pure scumbag.

Oh, it affects who he has by his side too. You know how you can judge a man from the company he keeps? Well, his ex-aide Jeff Nielsen just pleaded guilty two weeks ago to molesting a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old boy. Ewww. Now Rohrabacher's lying his ass off trying to distance himself from Nielsen. Except he personally vouched for Nielsen's character when writing a letter of recommendation for Nielsen to get him into USC's law school. (You knew USC had to be involved, didn't you?)

So now, Huntington Beach mayor Debbie Cook is challenging him. And it looks like the Orange County GOP is taking this seriously, as they tried to bleed her dry by tying her up with frivolous lawsuits about being called "mayor" on the ballot. Fortunately, both the Orange County court and the California Superior Court ruled against them, and ordered the Treasurer of the California Republican Party Keith Carlson to pay all the costs that Cook otherwise would've had to pay! They wouldn't have gone to all this trouble if they didn't think Debbie Cook stood a real chance of beating Rohrabacher. The Democratic turnout here on February 5th was 47.2%. Here is a good interview with Cook from the convention last week, again courtesy of the good folks over at Calitics.

4. CA-42: I'm taking a personal interest in this one, as I've known Democratic candidate Ron Shepston since he was "just" a regular ol' blogger. And he's challenging Gary Miller, who was deemed one of the most corrupt members of Congress by CREW.

Right now, Ron faces a primary challenge in Ed Chau, whose ex-communications director quit and was quite snippy about it. What's funny is that she claims Ron doesn't tell us enough about himself or his stances. Um... he's a blogger, and she doesn't know where he stands on issues? Has she ever read his stuff? Do career politicians talk about how we're in a Constitutional crisis now? Sheesh. Fine, you were backing the other guy. No need to rip on Ron unfairly there. It will still be an uphill battle for whichever Democrat; Dem turnout on February 5th was only 44%.

5. CA-50: This is Duke Cunningham's former seat, which he gave up to go to federal prison for bribery. Even with that huge scandal, Francine Busby couldn't pick up this seat for us in 2005 or 2006, and ex-Congressman and lobbyist Brian Bilbray won it. This time, we have San Diego prosecutor Nick Leibham running against Bilbray. You can read a good in-depth interview of him here. Clinical psychologist Cheryl Ede is also running, and there's talk that she's the more progressive of the two Democrats. But given the Republican tilt of this district (though Dem turnout on February 5th was 50.8%), Leibham may be the better bet. He does have the backing of the state party and unions like AFSCME.

6. CA-03: Dan Lundgren can't like the recent numbers coming out of his district, where 51.8% of those that voted on February 5th voted in the Democratic primary. Dr. Bill Durston, a Vietnam combat veteran, is challenging him. He also wrote a song, "War Is Not a Game".

7. CA-24: Democratic turnout on February 5th was actually 50.6%, which has us thinking this seat is more in play than the Republicans and incumbent Elton Gallegly would like to admit. 2006 challenger Jill Martinez is running again, as are AD-41 delegate Mary Pallant and blogger Marta Jorgensen. Bloggers actually seem to have gotten behind Pallant's candidacy. But this would still be a dark horse race. Nonetheless, something for Caitlin to get excited about here, her district finally matters!

8. CA-44: Ken Calvert has got some corruption issues too, and was also named as one of the most corrupt members of Congress by CREW. Teacher Bill Hedrick is challenging him. Two of Hedrick's sons are serving in Iraq. Dem turnout on February 5th here was 49.3%.

9. CA-52: Duncan Hunter retired to run for President (you may have missed it), and is trying to bequeath his seat to his son, Duncan Hunter, Jr. This is a strong military district. Hunter, Jr., is in the Marines, and even on the Democratic side, you had Green Beret Jim Hester running, who recently dropped out and endorsed Navy SEAL commander Mike Lumpkin. There's also Vickie Butcher running, but she's not military, and she's very progressive, which may not be to her advantage in a district such as this one. Dem turnout on February 5th was 47.2%.

10. CA-45: Mary Bono Mack (widow of Sonny Bono, now re-married) was handed this seat when Sonny was killed in a skiing accident. What's intriguing about this district was that Democratic turnout on February 5th was actually a surprising 51.3%. Blogs have mentioned Julie Bornstein as a good challenger, as she's held elected office in the past as an assemblymember, and has already been endorsed by both Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Still, Bono Mack hasn't done much to distinguish herself for special ignominy.


Oh, and in CA-11, after Jerry McNerney took out the most anti-environment member of Congress, Richard Pombo, in 2006, Republicans want this seat back, and they found a wealthy guy who can self-fund, Dean Andal. Though this district leans Republican, Dem turnout on February 5th was an eye-catching 53.7%. McNerney is only the 2nd member of Congress ever to have a Ph.D. in mathematics, and was a wind engineer, so the contrast between him and Pombo (and the Republican Party in general) on science and the environment couldn't be more stark. The DCCC will make sure McNerney successfully defends his seat.

Bill Maher taping

For those going to next Friday's taping, they just announced the following guests.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
actor Jason Alexander
couter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke
atheist Richard Dawkins

Obama's electability & coattail advantage over Hillary

silver spring recently did an excellent analysis of the SurveyUSA numbers that show Obama has greater coattails than Hillary. This coattail effect was shown last week when Democrats took control of Dennis Hastert's former seat in Illinois. Regardless of who's president, unless the Democrats get a supermajority, expect to see the remaining Senate Republicans filibuster all good progressive legislation, especially under a Democratic president. So the issue of coattails becomes important.

I want to extend what silver spring did by looking at Rasmussen's state numbers. Now, I trust SurveyUSA the most, as they've consistently shown themselves to get very accurate results. In 2004, they did the best job of any polling firm, and their track record's holding this year too. The second best pollster from 2004 is Rasmussen Reports. Let's look at their state numbers. I've bolded which Dem does better against McCain in each state.

State	Dem	Rep	Dem Margin
California	Obama 53%	McCain 38%	Win by 15%
	Clinton 46%	McCain 39%	Win by 7%
Colorado	Obama 46%	McCain 39%	Win by 7%
	Clinton 35%	McCain 49%	Lose by 14%
Connecticut	Obama 50%	McCain 38%	Win by 12%
	Clinton 47%	McCain 44%	Win by 3%
Florida	Obama 43%	McCain 47%	Lose by 4%
	Clinton 40%	McCain 47%	Lose by 7%
Iowa	Obama 44%	McCain 41%	Win by 3%
	Clinton 37%	McCain 47%	Lose by 10%
Michigan	Obama 41%	McCain 44%	Lose by 3%
	Clinton 43%	McCain 46%	Lose by 3%
Minnesota	Obama 53%	McCain 38%	Win by 15%
	Clinton 42%	McCain 47%	Lose by 5%
Missouri	Obama 40%	McCain 42%	Lose by 2%
	Clinton 42%	McCain 43%	Lose by 1%
Nevada	Obama 50%	McCain 38%	Win by 12%
	Clinton 40%	McCain 49%	Lose by 9%
New Hampshire	Obama 49%	McCain 36%	Win by 13%
	Clinton 43%	McCain 41%	Win by 2%
New Jersey	Obama 43%	McCain 45%	Lose by 2%
	Clinton 50%	McCain 39%	Win by 11%
New Mexico	Obama 44%	McCain 44%	Tie
	Clinton 38%	McCain 50%	Lose by 12%
Ohio	Obama 40%	McCain 46%	Lose by 6%
	Clinton 40%	McCain 46%	Lose by 6%
Oregon	Obama 49%	McCain 40%	Win by 9%
	Clinton 42%	McCain 45%	Lose by 3%
Pennsylvania	Obama 43%	McCain 44%	Lose by 1%
	Clinton 44%	McCain 46%	Lose by 2%
South Dakota	Obama 38%	McCain 48%	Lose by 10%
	Clinton 38%	McCain 50%	Lose by 12%
Virginia	Obama 44%	McCain 49%	Lose by 5%
	Clinton 41%	McCain 51%	Lose by 10%
Washington	Obama 44%	McCain 45%	Lose by 1%
	Clinton 40%	McCain 48%	Lose by 8%
Wisconsin	Obama 44%	McCain 43%	Win by 1%
	Clinton 38%	McCain 50%	Lose by 12%

And for you visual types, here it is in graphical form, based on the Democratic margin of victory.



In 14 of those states Rasmussen surveyed, Obama outperforms Hillary against McCain. In only 3 states does Hillary do better, and only in one of them does she actually have the lead over McCain, in New Jersey. And no, a Democrat is not going to lose New Jersey, no matter what some Hillary supporters are saying. A "safe" blue state is not suddenly flipping red in 2008.


Now, regarding what I said earlier about the polls agreeing? When do SurveyUSA and Rasmussen agree on who does better against McCain? Well, pretty much, they agree who does better almost every single time. So let's look at who does better against McCain, starting from Obama's most favorable to Clinton's most favorable, per Rasmussen, with the SurveyUSA margin in parentheses. I've also bolded the ones where there's a key Senate race going on.

Colorado, Obama +21 (SUSA: Obama +15)
Nevada, Obama +21 (SUSA: Obama +13)
Minnesota, Obama +20 (SUSA: Obama +3)
Iowa, Obama +13 (SUSA: Obama +14)
Wisconsin, Obama +13 (SUSA: Obama +7)
New Mexico, Obama +12 (SUSA: Obama +7)
Oregon, Obama +12 (SUSA: Obama +13)
New Hampshire, Obama +11 (SUSA: Obama +10)
Connecticut, Obama +9 (SUSA: Obama +11)
California, Obama +8 (SUSA: Obama +1)
Washington, Obama +7 (SUSA: Obama +16)
Virginia, Obama +5 (SUSA: Obama +10)
Florida, Obama +3 (SUSA: Clinton +11)
South Dakota, Obama +2 (SUSA: Obama +8)
Ohio, Tie (SUSA: Tie)
Missouri, Clinton +1 (SUSA: Clinton +2)
New Jersey, Clinton +13 (SUSA: Clinton +5)


Only three states give contradictory data, and with the margins so close, you can't really say that there's contradictory data for Michigan. In the other two, Rasmussen has Obama doing significantly better than Hillary.

Florida, Obama +3 (SUSA: Clinton +11)
Michigan, Tie (SUSA: Obama +1)
Pennsylvania, Obama +1 (SUSA: Clinton +6)

(Yes, I know, New Jersey has a Senate race too. But after Estabrook dropped out, in terms of it being a "key" Senate race, well... it's not. For now.)


Now, just because Obama or Hillary does better than McCain in those numbers I've listed above doesn't mean they'll actually win those states. Sometimes it's a matter of not losing by as much as the other person.

Strangely enough, both Rasmussen and SurveyUSA show Clinton and Obama performing the same against McCain, though Rasmussen has both of them losing by 6 points to McCain, while SurveyUSA has both of them handily beating him by 10 points! Now that's unexpected, unless you think that Ohioans really don't care which person's the Democratic candidate. But that still doesn't explain going from losing the state by 6 to winning the state by 10.

But for the most part, the two polling firms agree on who does better against McCain, thus making us more sure in stating that that candidate really does indeed have an advantage over the other one. And in terms of possible coattails, it's almost pretty obvious Obama will do a better job. Especially in Colorado and Oregon, where both firms show Obama does considerably better than Clinton against McCain, the coattail factor may be critical in ensuring a Democrat wins those two Senate seats, especially with the polling in those two Senate races not exactly in our favor right now.

Of course, all this just a snapshot in time, and things can change if some revelations come to light in the next couple weeks or months on any of the candidates. But for now, it does seem that the talk about Obama being a map-changer is justified by the polling data, from both SurveyUSA and Rasmussen.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary and Ferraro

Keith Olbermann delivered an extremely powerful and emotional Special Comment yesterday, about the race-baiting remarks of Geraldine Ferraro and the Clinton campaign's blase reaction to it all, especially given that Hillary was so adamant in that last debate that Obama reject AND denounce Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, when Farrakhan in no way worked on his campaign, while Ferraro was on Hillary's finance committee. And Ferraro seems to have a history of saying things like this.



Oh, and Ferraro has found herself an ally in... Bill O'Reilly. *hurl*

Water Consumption

I thought today I'd borrow this quick little tidbit from the guys at lwoimpactliving.com:

"The United States uses, on average, about 345 BILLION gallons of fresh water per day. To put this in perspective, that is enough water to cover the state of Rhode Island to a depth of a foot – used every day."

I encourage you to check out the link for more complete details. What I found most enlightening is the fact that by saving energy and switching to renewable energy sources, not only do we avoid the emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, we also save tremendous amounts of water.

If you are interested in learning how you can help save water, visit Treehugger's page on how to Green Your Water.

Source: http://www.lowimpactliving.com/pages/your-impacts/water1

IL-14: Success! Democrats win Hastert's seat!

Remember Dennis Hastert? He lost the Speaker of the House to Nancy Pelosi when Democrats took back the House in 2006. Well, without his precious Speakership, he decided to take his ball and go home, and soon resigned from Congress. Nevermind that the people in his district re-elected him to serve a two-year term. And so, there was a special election on Saturday for his seat. So what happened?

Physicist Bill Foster, the Democrat, won! He beat back Republican ice cream magnate Jim Oberweis, 53%-47%.

Bill Foster  (D): 53% (52,010)
Jim Oberweis (R): 47% (46,988)

The House Democrats' chief fundraiser said the victory in today’s special election for the Illinois seat vacated by Republican former Speaker Dennis Hastert is only the beginning of the hurt his party is going to lay on the GOP this fall.

“Despite spending 20 percent of ... their cash on hand, the [National Republican Congressional Committee] was unable to hold a seat easily won by President Bush and held by Speaker Hastert for 20 years,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen crowed. “Americans of all political stripes are rejecting Republicans’ divisive, status quo politics and turning to Democratic candidates for change.”

Democrat Bill Foster, a physicist running his first campaign, scored a 52-48 upset over Republican Jim Oberweis, a dairy owner who was expected to hold Illinois’ 14th Congressional District for the GOP. Foster won even in Kendall County, Hastert’s home base, reliably Republican – until now.

The NRCC took exception to Van Hollen’s analysis.

“The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend,” spokeswoman Karen Hanretty said. “In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season. The presidential election is evidence of that. The Democratic candidates are trading election victories from week to week and the nomination could hinge on a few news cycles. The one message coming out of 2008 so far is that what happens today is not a bellwether of what happens this fall.”

Van Hollen said Foster’s victory “sends a political shock wave across America this election year.”

“It is a stunning rejection of the Bush Administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Republican candidates learned tonight that Senator McCain, who campaigned with the Republican nominee, cannot save them from defeat this November against strong Democratic challengers, even in districts that voted overwhelmingly for President Bush.”

The GOP is trying to spin this away as simply being an Illinois thing, nevermind that this is a "red" district that gave Bush 55% of the vote in 2004, and Hastert still got 60% of the vote in 2006 even with the Mark Foley scandal hanging over his head. And the NRCC had tried to pull out all the stops in retaining the seat, spending about 29% of their entire cash on hand in this race. This is the first special election in four years where the party affiliation has changed, since Democrats won two special elections in Kentucky (Ben Chandler) and South Dakota (Stephanie Herseth Sandlin).

And yes, Obama played a key role here, cutting a commercial for Foster, while McCain campaigned with Oberweis. It was seen as a proxy fight between the two camps. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, did not even bother to endorse Foster in this race. And guess what? By becoming a Congressman, Foster will also be certified as a superdelegate, and yes, he's supporting Obama. This race can be seen as the first sign of Obama's coattails in a downticket race. Remember, unless we get to 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, expect to see 41 or more Republican Senators filibuster just about every good piece of legislation with a Democratic President.

Now, Foster has said he'd caucus with the Blue Dogs, so he's not exactly an out-and-out progressive. But given the makeup of his district, that may not be a bad thing. And on some key issues where the Blue Dogs have stabbed us in the back and sided with Bush, Foster doesn't seem to be making the same mistake, coming out strongly against telecom immunity.

Oh, and John Laesch, who ran against Hastert in 2006, and narrowly lost the Democratic primary to Foster this time around, has withdrawn his recount petition (there were some irregularities) for the sake of the party. Good on him. Look for his name in the future.

A look at the Senate races

So with eight months to go, I figure it’s time for an updated look at all the 2008 Senate races. There are 35 seats up for election because of a scenario in Wyoming and Mississippi where both seats are up, due to the passing of Craig Thomas and the resignation of Trent Lott, respectively. Now obviously, quite a few of the races are considered "safe" for the incumbent. So I’ll rank these in terms of tiers. The top tier will be the races where there is a serious challenger to the incumbent (or at least the incumbent’s party, in cases of retirement), where the party holding the seat has a real shot of switching. The second tier are races that could become top tier races, but are not at this point. Tier III are ones where a major event would need to happen for the seat to come into play. And the safe seats? Well, Mike Gravel has a better shot at winning the presidency than those incumbents have of losing their races.

I've only included the Tier I races here, otherwise this post would take up the entire page. To see the complete list, go here. #1 on the list is the seat most likely to change hands, and so forth. And like most countdowns, we're doin' this in reverse order.

Tier I

10. Texas: John Cornyn (R) has some pretty anemic poll numbers, and the immigration issue seems to have triggered a change in the Latino community. State rep. Rick Noriega (D) got a nice boost when wealthy trial attorney Mikal Watts (D) dropped out of the race and threw his support to Noriega, ensuring a united Democratic front against Cornyn in November. Noriega is also Lt. Col. in the Texas National Guard, served in Afghanistan after 9/11, and was chosen to coordinate relief efforts in Houston after Hurricane Katrina. Earlier polling shows Texans are largely dissatisfied with Cornyn, and a baseline poll from last September showed Cornyn beating Noriega 51%-35%, with only 40% saying Cornyn deserved re-election. And that was before Watts dropped out of the Democratic primary. The Texas GOP seems to be concerned about this race, as they recently demanded Noriega release his military records... to them. Instead, Noriega released his records to the entire public and denounced their swiftboating tactics at the same time. Well played, sir. However, the fundraising numbers are troubling, with Cornyn having outraised Noriega by more than a 4-to-1 margin in the fourth quarter, and Noriega trailed by almost $7 million in cash on hand to end the year.


9. Maine: Susan Collins (R) doesn’t have the stature that fellow Senator Olympia Snowe (R) has. Rep. Tom Allen (D) is running to challenge Collins. But even though Maine is a blue state, he’ll have an uphill climb. Collins has worked hard to craft her moderate credentials. The most recent polls all show Collins over the 50% mark, with almost 20-point leads over Allen. And the Maine newspapers suck. I mean, really suck.

Update: I mean, gawd, they really, really suck.


8. Oregon: Gordon Smith (R) has two challengers in lawyer/activist Steve Novick (D) and Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D). Smith’s approvals from 2007 are not as good as they were in 2006 and before. We’ll see if that trend continues. The state party itself is in financial trouble too, facing over a quarter million dollars in debt, and the IRS is calling for some missing payroll taxes. Rasmussen polling still shows Smith with double digit leads over both Democrats, but he is under the 50% mark. Interesting to note, Smith is actually a cousin to the two Udalls running for Senate.


7. Alaska: Ted Stevens (R) is always a candidate for retirement, being 85 years old now, but says he will seek a sixth term. But Stevens is in some legal trouble, with the FBI having raided his home last June in connection with possible bribes from Veco Corp., where several executives have already pled guilty to bribing his son Ben, who was the former state senate president. Former Veco CEO Bill Allen admitted some bribe money also went towards Ted Stevens. Democrats got their top choice when Anchorage mayor Mark Begich announced he was forming an exploratory committee (the first step in running). His father Nick Begich was a former Congressman, who was killed in a plane crash along with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-LA) in 1972. A Research 2000 poll from December showed Begich already leading Stevens 47%-41%.


6. Louisiana: Mary Landrieu (D) is the most endangered Democratic incumbent in 2008. But how endangered that really is remains to be seen. She was able to win in 2002, a decidedly strong year for the GOP. Karl Rove was able to woo state treasurer John Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family in Massachusetts) to switch parties to run for re-election to State Treasurer as a Republican last August, and after winning, he announced he would challenge Landrieu for her Senate seat. Party switching actually seems rather common in Louisiana. And hundreds of thousands of residents from New Orleans and the surrounding areas never came back to the state after Hurricane Katrina, making it even more red than it used to be. Bobby Jindal (R) didn’t even need a runoff to win the governor’s race last year, getting over 50% of the vote on the first ballot and performing stronger than expected. So that doesn’t bode well for Landrieu’s chances. The good news for her is that she raised over twice as much as Kennedy did in the fourth quarter last year (October – December) and has almost 10 times as cash on hand as he does.


5. Colorado: Wayne Allard (R) kept his pledge of only serving two terms, and is retiring from the Senate. Democrats have cleared the path for Rep. Mark Udall here. He’s Mo Udall’s son, and Tom Udall’s cousin. On the GOP side, former Rep. Bob Schaffer is the likely nominee. Colorado has been trending bluer recently, picking up a Senate seat in 2004 (Ken Salazar), and a congressional district and the governor’s office in 2006. Schaffer had previously lost the GOP primary for that Senate seat back in 2004 to Pete Coors. At the end of 2007, Udall was sitting on a $3.6 million warchest, with Schaffer trailing by over $2 million. Money isn’t everything, but damn. Dick Wadhams (no, really, that’s his name) is taking over Schaffer’s campaign. Wadhams got Allard first elected to the Senate, and became a rising start in the GOP for managing John Thune’s 2004 win over Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. But, he was also in charge of managing George Allen’s 2006 re-election bid in Virginia, sending him from a 20-point lead seven months out to defeat. (Allen revealing his inner racist greatly helped, too.) However, recent Rasmussen polling shows Schaffer barely edging out Udall, so this race is far from a given pickup.


4. Minnesota: Norm Coleman (R) won this seat in 2002 only after Paul Wellstone (D) died just a few weeks before the election. With two top challengers in comedian Al Franken and lawyer Mike Ciresi, Coleman had a change of heart on Iraq, actually criticizing Bush over his handling of Iraq for the first time in years. And the polls have been steadily favoring the Democrats, especially Franken. While earlier polls showed Coleman leading by double digits (though under the 50% mark), both Democrats have been steadily closing the gap. And in February, three polls came out showing Al Franken either leading Coleman or basically tied: Minnesota Public Radio (Franken 43.2%, Coleman 40%), Rasmussen (Franken 49%, Coleman 46%), and SurveyUSA (Coleman 47%, Franken 46%). Ciresi doesn’t seem to do as well. Franken is showing himself to be much more than just a comedian. In 2007, he raised close to $7 million from over 81,000 people! The Minnesota SEIU, a decent-sized union, just endorsed Franken too. In case you’re wondering, there’s no “primary” for the Democrats, but rather the nominee will be picked at the party convention this June among about 1,400 delegates.


3. New Mexico: When Pete Domenici (R) announced he was retiring, it suddenly turned this former Tier III seat into a top tier race. Rep. Tom Udall (D) announced for this seat shortly thereafter. Yes, he is part of the famed Udall political family; his father Stewart served as Interior Secretary under JFK, and his uncle Mo was an Arizona Congressman for 30 years, also running for President in 1976. Stewart Udall was largely responsible for just about all the environmental laws that were passed in the 1960s. The GOP side will feature a primary fight between Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce. So the entire New Mexico U.S. House delegation is running for this Senate seat! Before Udall even entered the race, hypothetical matchups from Research 2000 and SurveyUSA showed him crushing both GOP opponents by over 15 points. But a more recent Rasmussen poll shows a closer race, though with Udall still hitting the 50% mark in both matchups. The main New Mexico blog questioned the accuracy of the poll, given their matchup showing Obama tied with McCain, defying the trends you see in other states.


2. New Hampshire: John Sununu (R) is about to become 2008’s version of Rick Santorum. Democrats could run a ham sandwich against him, and it would be a competitive race. No, really. But why settle for a ham sandwich when you can run the former governor? Jeanne Shaheen (D), who Sununu beat in 2002 thanks to some illegal phone-jamming on Election Day for which several GOP operatives went to prison, has led Sununu in almost every single poll taken. The latest from the University of New Hampshire shows her leading 54%-37%. Rasmussen shows a closer race, with her leading 49%-41%. A general rule of thumb: any incumbent polling under 50% in an election poll is in trouble. Under 40%, and you can start writing their political obituary. Add to that, the fact New Hampshire strongly went blue in 2006 all over the place, kicking out both Republican Congressmen and flipping over 80 seats in the state House, giving Democrats control of both state legislature for the first time since 1910, and Sununu has to be considered the most endangered incumbent.


1. Virginia: Incredibly popular former Governor Mark Warner (D) is running for this seat that opened up when John Warner (R), no relation, announced his retirement. Warner left the governorship with a whopping 80% approval rating. That’s freaking unheard of. He’ll face another former Governor, Jim Gilmore (R), who some of you may remember tried running for President last year. Gilmore was known as the governor who helped drive the state into near-bankruptcy with his car tax cut, and Warner as the one who fixed the problem when he took over for Gilmore. Rasmussen Reports released a poll two weeks ago showing Mark Warner would CRUSH Jim Gilmore, 57%-37%.

McCain's Yes We Can video

Thanks to Andy Cobb and the folks at BarelyPolitical.com for making these two video parodies of the Yes We Can video a few posts below.

The sheer dumbassery of Ben Shapiro

I write this here because Ben Shapiro is, sadly, a UCLA graduate. One of the few mistakes UCLA has managed to produce. Shapiro was a child prodigy, starting at UCLA at the age of 16. But see, from talking to people that knew him, Shapiro was the classic case where those around him heaped praise upon him for being so smart, which led to unqualified arrogance on his part. And when he got to college and met professors who *gasp* were smarter than him, his lack of maturity couldn't handle it. Why, he couldn't possibly be wrong about anything! It must be those damned liberal professors who are wrong! It's why he wrote that book Brainwashed about how college professors are deviously trying to brainwash their students into becoming liberals. No, Ben, it's called critical thinking skills. Something you obviously never learned at UCLA. That, my friends, is Ben Shapiro in a nutshell.

And so today I was alerted to the latest piece of tripe he wrote for TownHall.com. His primary nonsensical claim? Barack Obama "went to a private high school and has spent about as much time facing down serious racism as Mitt Romney".

Wow. Just wow. I mean, what can you really say after seeing tripe such as that? Really, Ben? That's what you think? Got any proof of that, other than how Obama went to a private high school, where I'm sure racism simply did not exist? Cuz, you know, it's only in those damned public schools where racism still lingers. Say, UCLA is a public school..........

Of course, Obama not encountering enough racism for Shapiro's satisfaction at that private high school may have been because it was in Punahou, Hawaii, with a mix of a bunch of different races, and where whites were (and still are) a minority.

Yep, see, the best place to understand racism is to go to a young, white, conservative blogger who was raised in Burbank by two Reagan Republicans. As Kossack EdSF notes similarly: "The more privileged we gays are the less homophobia we experience."

As Wikipedia notes about him, he is a "very strong advocate for abstinence before marriage". For Ben, that won't be a problem. And from this latest column of his, it seems he understands what racism is as much as he understands "knowing" the opposite sex, in the Biblical sense of things. Which makes it even more interesting that he references Rick Salomon, creator of an infamous tape (OK, one of them) involving Paris Hilton:

Obama is a candidate who knows less about foreign policy than Rick Salomon, who at least knows about Paris.

Now, how did such a chaste young man like Shapiro even hear of Salomon? Must be that evil Internet warping his mind.

And finally, what does he mean by this line?

Barack Obama is the Halle Berry of American politics -- he's a pretty, nonthreatening face who happens to be the right color and, therefore, demands our plaudits.

Does Shapiro mean to say that if Halle Berry's skin were darker, then... he would find her threatening? Take what Shapiro says to its logical conclusion, and we come to a very disturbing discovery about what lurks deep inside Ben's mind.

Yes We Can

I think no matter who you support, most people would agree that this a pretty powerful ad.

On Saturday, YouTuber user "WeCan08" uploaded "Yes We Can," a music video for a new Obama ballad by the Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am and director Jesse Dylan, Bob Dylan's son. The "song" was essentially written by Barack Obama, since the lyrics are adapted from his "Yes We Can" speech after the New Hampshire primary. That speech, of course, was inspired by Cesar Chavez's motto for a United Farm Workers hunger strike in 1972. Excerpts of Obama play throughout the video, with accompaniment from stars like John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Common, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali and Nick Cannon. The video was first reported by ABC News, which interviewed the creators. (emphasis added for Kyle)

I am happy that both Democrats are reaching out to young people and hopefully inspiring them.

Props. 94-97: a bad idea

Don't take it from me, take it from the progressives over at Calitics.com, who call upon Democrats and progressives to vote against the Indian gaming propositions. They provide the following reasons.

A No vote on these referenda would overturn the compacts. These compacts do not make any guarantees of revenues to the state, although they toss around huge numbers in their ads, $9 B is the normal number. This number is through 2030, the life of the compact, and the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that on an annual basis, the income will be no more than $200M for the next few years, ranging up to the mid-hundreds of millions at their height. That is between 0.2% and say, 0.5% or 0.6% of the annual general fund income, which is currently $100B. Furthermore, if non-gaming tribes do not receive enough revenue, as dictated by the compacts, the state has to dip into its portion of revenues.

Furthermore, there is the issue of the unions. The tribes are not subject to NLRB standards, and these compacts make no assurances that the workers of this casino will have fair opportunity to organize.

The progressive San Francisco Bay Guardian also came out against the propositions, providing more details on why it's a bad idea.

But this is a shady deal, and voters should reject it.

Props. 94–97 would allow four tribes — all of which have become very, very wealthy through gambling — to dramatically expand the size of their casinos. The Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan, and Agua Caliente tribes operate lucrative casinos in Southern California, spend a small fortune on lobbying, and convinced Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to give them permission to create some of the largest casinos in the nation. Opponents of this agreement have forced the issue onto the ballot.

The tribes say the deals will bring big money into the state coffers, and it's true that more gambling equals more state revenue. But the effective tax rate on the slot machines (and this is all about slot machines, the cash engines of casinos) would be as little as 15 percent — chump change for a gambling operation. And none of the other tribes in the state, some of which are still desperate for money, would share in the bounty.

The big four tribes refuse to allow their workers to unionize. While we respect tribal sovereignty, the state still has the right to limit the size of casinos, and if the tribes want the right to make a lot more money, they ought to be willing to let their workers, not all of them Indians, share in some of the rewards. We're talking billions of dollars a year in revenue here; paying a decent salary is hardly beyond the financial ability of these massive operations.

The governor cut this deal too fast and gave away too much. If the tribes want to expand their casinos, we're open to allowing it — but the state, the workers, and the other tribes deserve a bigger share of the revenue. Vote no on 94-97.

I urge the Bruin Democrats to take these things into consideration before Tuesday's vote. Allowing workers the right to unionize is one of the key things that separates us from Republicans. Like it or not, unions have been the backbone of the Democratic Party. That these casinos do not allow their workers such a precious right is a travesty no matter how you look at it.

I understand I'm going against the club's endorsement on these propositions, but I ask that everyone look at what's really going on with the deals again.

Edwards out

It's down to Hillary and Obama now. (And Mike Gravel.)