My favorite hypocrites in the CHR debate

Topping the list has to be Glenn Beck. Here he is discussing his experience in the hospital for brain surgery (conducted via his ass).



Jon Stewart nicely captured Beck's hypocrisy here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Glenn Beck's Operation
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Our runner-up:
The geniuses who argue that government shouldn't be involved in health care because they screw up everything they touch.....but we shouldn't have a government option because the government plan will be so compelling that it will force out all the poor, deprived insurance companies out of business.

And finally, this guy:

They look alike to me

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was not amused when a TV reporter called him Al Sharpton:

Gay Marriage

Gavin Newsom became the poster boy for the Prop 8 forces when they successfully passed the anti-gay marriage initiative here in California. They used this clip as part of a commercial that got a lot of media play:



Newsom was giving a campaign speech and it was easy to caricature him, but more and more conservatives are coming to the same conclusions as Gavin. The NY Observer has an interesting article about NY times conservative columnist Ross Douthat.

"He added that the conservative opposition to gay marriage is "a losing argument," and asked rhetorically if committed homosexual relationships ought to be denied the legal recognition accorded without hesitation to the fleeting enthusiasms of Britney Spears and Newt Gingrich.

After the panel, Mr. Douthat told the Observer: "If I were putting money on the future of gay marriage, I would bet on it."

He added: "The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren't just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don't find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,' you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.' Who wins that debate? You win that debate."

Republicans often win arguments on taxes because they successfully cast it as "Do you want to pay lower taxes?" The simple, concise argument is often most effective. In the case of gay marriage, I think there will be a continual erosion of support for preventing homosexuals from marrying. Especially since many of the arguments against gay marriage are similar to the ones against mixed race marriages (it just ain't natural). Of course, some geniuses are still trying to make the argument against mixed race marriage.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

Back

Sorry, it has been been a long time. I can count on Lamar! Alexander to inspire me to write again- he's comparing President Obama with Big Dick Nixon.

Apparently, he doesn't like the fact that the White House has inconveniently pointed out that Fox News isn't really, you know, a "news" channel. Lamar! wants the White House to idly sit by while President Obama is repeatedly demonized by Fox. Not gonna happen, Lamar!.

Probably a bit rusty on posting, but hoping to get back in the swing (and maybe my distinguished co-host Jon will be enticed back to posting as well).

Ted Kennedy Speaks Out on Health-Care Reform | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406/page/1

Sent from my iPhone

Mark Sanford apologizes....again

I love that he just keeps going and going with the apologies. But I am disappointed that in this latest one he made no mention of his "soulmate" or their "tragic love story.

Here's the latest apology.

Fla. city to workers: Wear underwear, deodorant

What happened to the Constitutional right of city works to not wear underwear? You say there isn't a Constitutional right to go commando? It's in there somewhere, next to the right to privacy. This underocracy in Florida has gone way too far, with their crazy rules.

The only sane person in city government appears to be the Mayor. According to a news report, Mayor Joe Bernadini cast the dissenting vote, calling the underwear amendment “a little far-fetched” and adding, “I think in a way it takes away freedom of choice.” Damn right it does.

Do you think that George Washington and Nathaniel Hale would have fought the Revolutionary War if they knew that this sort of tyranny would ensue?

In the words of Homer Simpson: "That's not America...that's not even Mexico."



http://www.contracostatimes.com/weird/ci_12618002

Clip of new Michael Moore movie

Not sure if it will be able to top the Farenheit 911 clip of President Bush reading a story book after the Trade Centers were attacked, but I'm still looking forward to seeing it:



I think one of the biggest flaws in our economic system is that the risk-reward ratio has become completely skewed. We offered huge rewards to financial firms, but really we removed the risk aspect of it. CEOs were able to obtain massive paychecks by utilizing leverage and derivatives, but haven't experienced any penalties for failure.

Gavin Newsom's not the only one

Nevada Senator John Ensign admitted yesterday that he had an affair with a married staffer last year. This probably puts a kabosh on the huge "Ensign for President" movement- all 6 people are hopping of that bandwagon.

Ensign was the same guy who condemned Bill Clinton and Larry Craig for their... recreational activities. By the way, has there ever been a worse job than the vice cop who was assigned to the bathroom at the Minnesota airport? "Uhmmm, yeah, Lou, what you need to do is plant yourself in a stall and tap your foot and hopefully someone will want to have sex with you in the bathroom- maybe even a family values Senator."

The early front-runner for quote of the year comes from Ensign's wife: "With the help of our family and close friends, our marriage has become stronger. I love my husband.” Yeah, nothing strengthens a marriage like sleeping with a staffer, especially when her husband also works for you. Good times all around. Maybe this is what they mean by making it a "big tent party".

Smile, Sarah....but no talking

Nothing sums up the current state of the GOP better than the fact that they can't even figure out who will be their keynote speaker at an event. They invite Sarah Palin to keynote, then she's not keynoting, then Newt is keynoting, Sarah's still speaking, then she's not coming, then she is coming..... and so it goes. It reminds me of the Democrats during the 1980s- and I'm so glad to be on the outside looking in.

Jon recently wrote about the GOP frontrunners for 2012. If Palin or Gingrich were the nominee, David Axelrod would be popping champagne.

The fading Clinton Magic

Terry McAuliffe got trounced in the Va. primary yesterday, despite tons of money and high-profile endorsements. Big Bill even came out and campaigned for him, but to no avail.

Virginia Governor's race

The race for the Democratic Gubernatorial nomination in Virginia looks like it will be going down to the wire. A couple of weeks ago, it looked as though uber-Clintonite Terry McAuliffe was starting to pull away. He cracked 40% in the polls and he has raised a ton of money. But instead of the Macker cruising to victory, the race suddenly got much tighter. Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran both started moving up in the polls while McAuliffe moved backwards. As Nate at 538 noted, the polls look like the Iowa caucus in 2004 (Dean crashing, Kerry and Edwards rising rapidly).

It also reminds me of the 2006 CA Dem race for governor. Steve Westly had moved in to a lead against Phil Angelides and had a ton of money to spend on the race. Once Westly was up by 7 or 8 points, I thought his financial advantage ensured he'd win. Instead, Angelides won the endorsement of the CA Dem party at the state convention and came back to win. Angelides also had the good sense to put his attractive daughters and wife front and center in his commercials (no one mistook Phil for Brad Pitt).

My guess is that McAuliffe will win by a tiny margin, but we might not know who the winner is on Election Night.

More geniuses at the RNC

A few of the things that haven't stuck:

1. Obama is an iron-fisted dictator
2. Obama is a wimp
3. Obama will cause the stock market to collapse.
4. Obama will surrender to the Iraqis
5. Obama's Supreme Court pick is a man-hating racist
6. Obama has the audacity to go to New York on a Saturday night with his wife

Next on the list- rename the Democratic Party. New name, courtesy of RNC members: Democrat Socialist Party.

Economic crisis, North Korea testing nukes, GM in bankruptcy, unemployment still climbing....when faced with all of these issues, members of the RNC chose to focus their efforts on name calling. I'm sure they will be back in power in no time!

Kind of crazy when Michael Steele is the voice of reason in your party and helps put an end to this nonsense.

GOP 2012 Contenders?

A poll today shows Huckabee (22%), Palin (21%) and Romney (21%) in a virtual three way tie when it comes to the Republican preferences right now for their 2012 candidate. Of course its ridiculously early, and the poll is mainly just a reflection of candidates who just ran for national office in 2008 and are still on people's minds. As brilliant as his 2004 Democratic convention speech was, few thought Obama would be ready to run in 2008 with just 4 years in the Senate under his belt. And in 1988 the Democratic talk for 1992 centered around well known heavyweights like Mario Cuomo - and not some obscure Southern Governor named Bill Clinton. It's difficult to know who will emerge this far out.

From a Democratic perspective, Romney is really the only guy on that list who should be of any concern. Huckabee is a surprisingly charismatic speaker and a very likeable guy - but his politics are too far to the right to make him much of a threat in a general election. And its just hard to imagine future children reading about a "President Huckabee". Palin is a national joke. Sure, there is a core of 20-25% of the GOP that will always love her, but it won't be enough to get through a primary, let alone a national election. There was probably nobody McCain could have selected as VP that would have won him the 2008 election, but Palin ended whatever chance he did have by pushing moderates, independents, and voters who like their candidates to be able to answer basic questions (like "what do you read?") into the Obama camp for good. Romney, on the other hand, looks and sounds like a President, has a certain gravitas to him, can raise money, and has proven he can win in blue states - serving as Governor of Massachusetts. And if the economy is still sluggish in 2012 - likely the only way the GOP are going to beat Obama anyhow - his credentials in that field can serve him well with the electorate.

The GOP actually have a candidate who on paper looks perfect for 2012. A popular former Governor of Florida, a critical swing state the party lost in 2008. A man who is liked by both economic and social conservatives, yet while not polarizing the electorate and pushing away moderates. His wife was born in Mexico, and he is popular with a Latino community that the Republican party has struggled to capture politically. Yet Jeb's last name happens to be "Bush", and after 12 years of mediocre to horrible Bush Presidencies (although Bush 41 is looking better and better all the time in comparison), its questionable if America has any interest in seeing yet another Bush in the White House. If, after 4 years of Obama, people are looking back fondly on the Bush era - this country will be in more trouble than anyone can imagine.

No go, Antonio?

Chronicle columnists Matier and Ross report that LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has decided to pass on a gubernatorial run in 2010.

The LA Times reports that Antonio has not ruled out a run....but that he is dating a local TV reporter. No, not the local TV reporter who helped break up his marriage- a different one.

He's certainly an ambitious guy and would like to be Governor. If he Antonio were able to garner a large percentage of SoCal and/or Hispanic voters, he'd be tough for Newsom and Brown to beat.

Kind of funny that "Governor Moonbeam" has the least amount of personal baggage in this race- I don't think his fling with Linda Ronstadt will hurt him very much.

Wonder why there is a gender gap?

Over the weekend, the First Couple (sans children) flew up to New York and had dinner
at a Greenwich Village restaurant and then saw the Broadway play "Joe Turner's Come and Gone". Since apparently Jon and Kate didn't have any big updates on the status of their marriage, the Obamas' date night got a fair amount of coverage.

Some genius over at the RNC decides that this is an issue they can attack the popular President on. “As President Obama prepares to wing into Manhattan’s theater district on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show, GM is preparing to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills,” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

My guessing the strategy meeting went something like: The American people like his handling of the economy, foreign policy, his Supreme Court pick.....uhmmmmm, let's attack him for taking his wife out to dinner and a show.

Now some husbands might feel a bit sheepish that their offers of NetFlix and Chinese take-out are looking a bit pale in comparison, but does the RNC really think this one is going to stick? On haircuts (see Bill Clinton and John Edwards), Dems might be vulnerable. But I'm guessing not a lot of women are going to fault Obama for getting all dressed up, flying up to New York for a romantic dinner and Broadway show." The only possible negative fall out for Obama might be when husbands start to hear: "Why can't you be more romantic and treat me like Barack treats Michelle?"

It just keeps getting worse in Cali

Instead of a $21 billion deficit, we are now looking at $24 billion. Ughhhhhh. Not many good choices at this point and it is guaranteed to get ugly. Here's a snippet from SFgate.com of what's being cut:

On Tuesday, the governor's finance officials released the following details on how the governor would cut $5.5 billion through June 2010:

-- $750 million from the University of California and California State University systems, bringing the total reduction over two fiscal years to nearly $2 billion.

-- $10.3 million - Eliminate all state general fund spending for UC Hastings College of Law.

-- $173 million - Eliminate new Cal Grants.

-- $70 million - Eliminate general fund support for state parks, potentially closing 80 percent of them.

-- $247.8 million - Eliminate the Healthy Families program, which provides health care to nearly 1 million poor children.

-- $1.3 billion - Eliminate the CalWorks program, which primarily helps unemployed single mothers find jobs.

The fact that we are now eliminating programs that help unemployed single mothers find jobs is like revoking the reduced bus fares for war widows (Simpsons reference).

Cutting two billion from the University system and eliminating Cal Grants is mortgaging the future of our state. Similar to when companies slash R&D spending- it might temporarily help the bottom line, but it is a disaster in the long run.

Governor Arnold rode in to office saying how we could roll back the vehicle tax and happy days would be here again. Hasn't quite worked out so well. But it is fun to look back at his campaign commercials:

Sotomayor

President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, appears to be a home run. Despite a few stumbles (Daschle, Bill Richardson), the Obama team has put forth a solid string of nominees for top positions. I'm still taking a wait-and-see approach on Treasury Secretary Geithner, but can't think of another pick that I've been disappointed in.

It's kind of funny seeing the Republicans try and muster up a rational argument for opposing Judge Sotomayor. President Bush the Elder first nominated her to be a federal judge and she's been approved twice by the Senate. Maybe they will come up with something really witty, like the Hispanic equivalent of Magic Negro....Rush, our eyes turn to you.

Up and Comers

So as a new feature, we'll periodically profile some up and coming politicians- feedback would be appreciated and please send suggestions.

Cory Booker is the mayor of Newark, New Jersey. He won on his second try- his first attempt ended in a close defeat to long-time incumbent Sharpe James. The first race was the subject of the documentary "Street Fighter"- a fantastic movie- here's the trailer:



Sharpe James was the symbol of corruption in Newark- a troubled city that is in the shadow of New York.

Booker had moved to Newark after his graduation from Yale Law School. He'd previously been a Rhodes Scholar and graduated with degrees in political science and sociology from Stanford. Booker moved in to one of the worst housing projects in Newark and helped organize tenants to fight for improved conditions. In 1998, Booker won a seat on the City Council.

The biggest challenge facing Booker in Newark is the rampant crime. He's equipped the police department with innovative technologies that allow them pinpoint criminal hot spots and deploy officers quickly. Business Week proclaimed it to be the future of crime fighting. The result is that Newark just announced its fewest numbers of homicides since 1959.

Booker is a close ally of President Obama and certainly seems like he'll be a candidate for higher office. There were rumors that he might challenge incumbent Governor Jon Corzine, but he took a pass on it this year.

State of California tells the politicians to get back to work

The voters of California appear to have rejected 5 of the 6 ballot measures. The only one that is passing is 1F- it would ban pay hikes for politicians until a budget is passed.

Voters are fed up with our broken political process and both Democrats and Republicans need to take note. We'll see if they listen and are actually able to get a budget in on-time this year.

Republicans have been the ones who have held up the passing of the budget the past few years, but Democrats haven't done a good job of pointing that fact out and telling voters what the impacts will be.

Politically astute Dems? It's like the West Wing has come to life!

For all you Toby Ziegler and Josh Lyman fans, President Obama's nomination of Utah Republican Jon Huntsman to become the new Ambassador to China is an inspired choice. By all accounts, Huntsman is extremely qualified- fluent in Mandarin, former Ambassador to Singapore, former deputy US trade rep, etc. But he's also the guy that former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe singled out as being the most worrisome potential GOP nominee in 2012. Huntsman becoming the Ambassador to China pretty much rules him out from making a bid in 2012. Two birds, one stone. Nice change from past Democratic operations that resulted in lots of stones, no birds, many bloody foreheads.

Marriage is bankrupting small businesses

Well, that's the take away I get from RNC Chairman Michael Steele's last statements, but I'm not real sure that even he knows what the hell he's talking about. Mr. Steele, uncle to Mike Tyson's children, is now casting his opposition to gay marriage as being driven by economics. The AP quotes him:

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

So when Jack and Diane want to get married, they are costing you money. Ungrateful punks.

Special Election...Yawn

Here in California, we are having a special election today, but in reality it is not all that special. Governor Arnold's diminishing clout has become more apparent every day and it will be emphasized in the next 24 hours. The man who came rolling in to office promising reform and to blow up the boxes of government....well, that guy must have snuck away in the last 6 years.

It looks like all of the propositions except for 1F, will go down to defeat tomorrow. Politicians are whining that failure to pass the measures will leave us with a $21 billion budget gap. That's a complete cop-out. Our elected officials are elected to handle these exact sorts of things. We've gotten in to a vicious cycle in California- we can never pass a decent budget, out come a bunch of propositions, most don't pass, the props that do pass hamstring the budget even more, repeat.

California going over the cliff

The California budget is just an utter mess at this point- a deficit of $21 billion. If all of the measures pass next week in the special election, then we'll be down to a mere $15 billion.

The Governor is completely helpless at this point. The energy and enthusiasm that he brought in to office have been slowly fading away. He's basically evolved in to Gray Davis with better pectoral muscles.

One of the biggest obstacles to fixing the deficit is that California requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature in order to pass a budget. That means that the minority party can hold the process hostage. Furthermore, because of how incumbents have protected themselves in the redistricting process, we have almost no competitive seats in California. Therefore, the Republicans have reached a point where they are much more worried about the primary than they are about a general election. Republican candidates are terrified about voting for a budget that has any hint of a tax increase because it leaves them vulnerable to a primary challenge.

Until we fix the 2/3 rule, we are going to have budget disasters on a yearly basis in California.

Retractions you don't expect to see

From today's NY Times on the Pope's trip to Israel:

"...the German pope’s spokesman first said that Benedict “never, never, never” had belonged to the Hitler Youth but later had to issue a retraction."

I'm sure you could have gotten really good odds in Las Vegas years back on "Next Pope would have been in the Hitler Youth at one point". Probably the same odds they would have given you on "Black guy with Arab name and crazy preacher" being the next Preisdent.

The lady doth protest too much?

Sarah Palin is coming out with a book (insert own joke here) and from her quotes she seems to be just a little sensitive about her reputation, don't you think?

"Being a voracious reader, I read a lot today and have read a lot growing up. And having that journalism degree, all of that, will be a great assistance for me in writing this book,..Palin said. "I've read a variety of books, and that helps shape my opinions and my views."

Most authors don't feel the need to prove they actually read books, but then most authors never had an interview like this:

Does Jack Bauer know the Bush era is over?

Kiefer, Kiefer, Kiefer- you can't go around head-butting fashion designers and breaking their noses. It is certainly understandable to have violent feelings if you think someone has antagonized Brooke Shields- she's a national treasure and we all feel duty-bound to defend her honor. But no more water-boarding, no more breaking noses, OK?

John Kerry comments on the newspaper industry

John Kerry today discussed his take on the future of the newspaper industry. I found it fascinating. Not his take - but the fact that apparently John Kerry is still in the U.S. Senate. Haven't seen that guy in a while. It's still kind of amazing that one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history was running for re-election, and this guy somehow lost to him.

Kerry was quoted in the article as saying "paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the internet." Just replace "paper and ink" with "John Kerry" and "the internet" with "Barack Obama" and I think we have the current state of affairs in the Democratic party.

Edwards- the broken promise

Prior to the rise of Barack Obama, the two most talented politicians I had ever seen were Bill Clinton and John Edwards. They had obvious similarities- smooth talking Southern lawyers who were viewed by their adversaries as being too slick. I always liked both of them, but never fully bought in to them.

In 2000, Edwards was one of three finalists to be Gore's running mate and I really hoped he'd be the pick. Even at the time, I thought Lieberman was an uninspired choice- guy was just so drab and boring. In debates with Cheney, Lieberman never bothered to point out the extreme positions that Cheney had taken throughout his political career. The VP nominee normally doesn't make a huge impact, but I really believed that the difference between Edwards and Lieberman could have eliminated all the nonsense in Florida.

In 2004, I was an early and ardent supporter of Wesley Clark, but Edwards was a close 2nd choice. When Clark fizzled early on (skipping Iowa was huge mistake), I quickly switched over to Edwards. I think he was really close to being the nominee- he just missed a few breakthroughs that I think would have catapulted him to the nomination. He almost won in Iowa; narrowly lost to Clark in Oklahoma; and then almost beat Kerry in Wisconsin once it was a two-person race.

Despite not being a huge fan of Edwards on a personal level, John Kerry picked him to be his running mate because of Edwards obvious abilities as a campaigner. As the VP nominee, Edwards never really went after Bush and Cheney- second time in a row that the Dems needed a pit bull as the VP nominee and instead got a poodle (Biden was a refreshing change).

After the 2004 election, it felt to me like Edwards' time had passed. Since he had given up his Senate seat (in part because he would have had a tough time winning reelection), he didn't have a natural platform to build a 2008 campaign. He announced that he was founding a poverty center at UNC. I wasn't always sure of his sincerity, but it was good to see a politician addressing the issue of poverty in America.

With Obama and Hillary Clinton in the race, there never seemed to be a plausible path to victory for Edwards. He banked everything on Iowa, but his fund raising was so far behind the other two that he was incapable of running a truly national campaign. Once Obama won Iowa, Edwards had no hope of winning the nomination, but he stayed in the race. He continued to hammer on the issues of poverty and universal health care- in a lot of ways, it seemed like he was keeping Hillary and Barack on their toes- keeping them honest about some of the tough issues.

When the whole mistress scandal exploded, I was split between sadness and anger. I certainly felt horrible for Elizabeth Edwards and their children. But I was angry that he had the audacity to run for the Presidency when he had this ticking time bomb shoved in his closet.

Now Elizabeth Edwards has written a new book and she'll be on Oprah tomorrow. She's certainly handled herself with dignity and grace when faced with numerous tragedies- her son's death and her own battle with cancer being the most prominent ones.

Unfortunately, part of the book seems to be an attempt to settle a score with Rielle Hunter. It's America and Elizabeth Edwards certainly has the right to tell her story- but it just seems like everyone would have been better off without this book. It stirs up some uncomfortable questions- the obvious one being the paternity of Hunter's baby. Hard to believe that Edwards isn't the father and his denial doesn't have much credibility. Furthermore, it just takes an unbelievable amount of gall to run for President when tabloids are already writing about your mistress being paid by your campaign and your wife is diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Since John Edwards had his televised confession, the couple had largely withdrawn from public view. I have a feeling that over the next few weeks, I'm going to find myself wishing they had stayed out of view.

Wendy Button, a former Edwards speech writer, has an interesting article at Politico.

Obama sneaks out for a burger

Last month Brian noted that the First Lady had snuck out of the White House for a burger, and I couldn't help but notice the President doing the same today. If there is a story involving the nexus between politics and hamburgers - Brian and I are on it! You are talking about two guys that tried to volunteer for the Mayor McCheese campaign. I don't care what anyone says, the man was framed.

Anyhow, here is Obama's burger run. Watch him ordering - its the most professional I've ever seen anyone order a burger. And I've watched a lot of people order burgers. You would think he was answering a question about counter-terrorism policy in a debate from the tone. I'm sure deep down he was just happy Biden didn't make some accidentally racist statement, before tripping over the counter and into the food.

Sarah Palin: Conservatism's most "articulate" voice?

I'm still not quite sure what to make of Rush Limbaugh's comment today that Sarah Palin has been one of conservatism's most articulate voices. Part of me thinks its just another in a long line of Rush making comments that make zero sense whatsover. But part of me thinks maybe she really was one of their more articulate voices, which explains why the Republican party and the conservative movement are at a political and intellectual nadir.

Well, you judge for yourself on Ms. Articulate ....



My favorite though was when she couldn't name one newspaper she reads. I mean the question isn't even really "name a newspaper you actually read", which should be simple enough. In basic political terms the question is really "just name a newspaper" - its not like they are going to fingerprint newspapers to make sure you really read them. Then she complained about "gotcha" journalism, when its hard to think of an easier question than what newspaper do you read.

Specter's not helping his cause....

With answers like this:

NYT Q: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?

Arelen Spector: I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

Read Jon's post below about why Specter hasn't yet been embraced by all members of the Democratic Party.

And Arlen can't be real happy about the fact that Senate Dems just stripped him of his seniority on Senate Committees.

And he's now backing away from his support for Norm Coleman (I'm getting dizzy here). In Congressional Quarterly today:

But questioned outside the Senate chamber Tuesday, Specter said the comment was a mistake.

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

Pennsylvania 2010 Senate craziness?

When Arlen Specter announced he was switching parties and becoming a Democrat, it seemed as if what could have been an interesting 2010 Senate race would be over. Had he run as a Republican, Specter was going to lose to Toomey in the primary, and then a moderate Democrat would likely win the seat. But once he switched, it looked as if he would be an overwhelming favorite to retain his seat in a general election. Particularly after Obama pledged his support.

But first came rumblings that new Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak may challenge Specter in the primary. Then Specter alienated labor, a major Democratic constituency, voted against the President's budget, and followed it by denying having ever said he would be a "loyal Democrat". As excited as Democrats are to have him switch, if he bucks the party on too many core issues, he invites a strong primary challenge from the left. Ironic for a man who left the Republican party because he was facing too strong a primary challenge from the right.

And for a while the Republican side seemed like a clear field for Pat Toomey, a right wing former Congressman who would be a relatively easy candidate for Democrats to run against in a general election. Pennsylvania has been moving to the center-left politically, and Toomey is way out on the right. But now there is talk popular former Governor Tom Ridge may run. Ridge would be a strong candidate for the GOP. He is well liked, fairly moderate (his pro-choice views kept McCain from being allowed to pick him for VP in 2008), and he has won statewide there before. His successful stint as Secretary of the Homeland Security Department won't hurt either. Indeed, early polls show Specter beating Toomey pretty badly in a general election, but a Ridge-Specter race being a virtual toss-up. It would certainly be one of the key races in 2010 if it happened.

Rep. Sestak is an interesting guy and somebody to watch, even if he doesn't throw his name in the hat this time. He retired from the Navy as a 3-star Admiral, then knocked out 20 year GOP Congressman Curt Weldon in the 2006 elections. He has made a strong early impression in the Congress, and has been a solid fundraiser as well. If he was to make it to the U.S. Senate, from a key battleground state like Pennsylvania, its easy to see him as an attractive national candidate some day. The one negative could be his reputation as a tough person to work for. But he is a definitely a politician to keep an eye on.

Depending on what Specter does as a Democrat, and who jumps in as a candidate, this could be among the most watched and interesting races of 2010.

Big John talking about his Congressman

Bill Durston, the Democratic nominee in the 3rd Congressional District in 2008, is standing in the background, looking like he just found out Dan Lungren ran over his dog.

Condi Rice has a touch of the crank-crank

Favorite quote from the former of Secretary of State: "No dear, you're wrong. You're wrong. We didn't torture anyone. Guantanamo Bay was considered a model medium-security prison."

Bush and Cheney actually less popular now

A recent poll shows Bush's approval having dropped from 31% to 26% now, and Cheney's dropping from 21% to 18%.

It's crazy to think that a two term President and Vice-President could be at 26% and 18% in the polls. Even unpopular national leaders tend to hover in the low 40% range. It's almost impossible to get 80% of the country to agree on anything in a poll, but after 8 years of the Bush/Cheney debacle the public is pretty together on this one. I guess George Bush really was a uniter. Heck, even if you add their approval numbers together, you still get a pretty unpopular politician.

Cheney's diminishing popularity I kind of get. Since the election he has been all over the airwaves slamming the new administration, claiming we are more likely to get attacked, and attacking Obama's economic policies. After leaving the nation in a historical economic ruin following his 8 years, that last one makes Dick Cheney an early runner for the 2009 "pure balls" award. It's almost as if someone told him "there is no way you can get less popular than 21% approval" and he took that guy up on the dare.

Bush, on the other hand, kind of surprised me. People generally liked him as a person, they just despised his policies, record, and Presidency. I figured once he was out of office and unable to do any more damage to the country, the dislike would subside and he would creep up in popularity. Further, he was classy and supportive during the transition, and has refused to bash Obama - unlike some Vice-Presidents of his I can think of. Yet he dropped 5%. Which is not easy when you are already hovering at 31% - somewhere around the approval rating Americans tend to give Somali pirates. The only thing I can figure is people watched Obama for 100 days and thought "Oh yeah, that's what having a good President was like".

"White House Sorry After Biden Remark"

Just saw that headline on CNN.com, in reference to Biden's comments about the swine flu. I don't think what he said was really that bad, but what is the over/under in Vegas for how many times you are going to see that headline in the next 4 years?

The best part was Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' statement: "I know what he said, and I am telling you what he meant to say". I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot of that too in the coming months and years.

Facebook lawyer wants to be CA AG

Chris Kelly, the Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook, is gearing up to run for Attorney General of California. His joining a crowded Democratic field- SF District Attorney Kamala Harris, LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo (he got beat by Jerry Brown in 2006), Assemblyman Ted Lieu and Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico are among the other contenders.

Kelly already has a Facebook app (never seen a person have an app devoted to them before)and a web page up. Kind of a given that a candidate will have a web page, but I do remember that the Democratic candidate in the 15th AD (now held by Joan Buchanan) never managed to get a website, despite people offering to build it for him. If he'd gotten 4% more of the vote, he'd have been in the Assembly. Absolutely killed me...but I digress.

In a down-ballot race like AG, it is hard to get your message out in a state like California. TV advertising is pretty much limited to the last week or two of the race- only gazillionaires who self-fund can afford to have ads up prior to that. Ballot designation can have a big impact (that's why you always see things like "educator" and "rancher" instead of "career politician").

I'm sure that Kelly has some cash stashed away, but doubt he'll be able to plop down a chunk of cash like Steve Westly did. I'm sure he'll leverage Facebook, but what else will he do to breakthrough?

Who is Anthony Woods? Does he know John Galt?

I had never heard of him until about 3 weeks ago, but suddenly he's someone that all the major players (you need a heartbeat and good hygiene to be labeled as such) in Contra Costa politics are buzzing about. He's the latest candidate to jump in the race to succeed Ellen Tauscher in Congress. Side note- poor Ellen is like an elderly, sick Aunt who is surrounded by relatives waiting for her to just die already. In this case, they are waiting for her to get confirmed by the Senate and resign her seat.

So why the hype about Anthony Woods? Starts with the bio- he's a young, gay, African-American, Bronze Star winning, Harvard and West Point educated, humanitarian son of a single Mom who supported them by working long hours as a housekeeper. And that's the short version- check out his full bio here. It kind of reminds me of when Jon Stewart played tape of John Edwards talking about how he was the son of a mill worker...very impressive- until Stewart played tape of Obama talking about how his father herded goats. Goat herder trumps mill worker.

This special election is going to be a wild ride. It certainly is hard to imagine that a political unknown could knock off a State Senator, State Assemblywoman and Lieutenant Governor,,,,but dude has a hell of a resume. His website is pretty slick and he certainly seems to have a good grasp of social media. I haven't met him yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

The GOP Map

Much has been made of the shrinking GOP base, how badly they are doing with young people and minorities, and how they are losing moderate voters as they pull further to the right. It's sort of a vicious cycle, because as they lose moderates the remaining voters and elected officials in the party are the kinds of dogmatic conservatives who pull the party further to the right, thus further alienating moderates.

Anyhow, since I was curious, here is a list of the states that voted Republican in 2000, 2004 and 2008 - all 3 elections.

Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Texas, and Missouri. The list kind of speaks for itself, really.

The bad news for the GOP is they don't have much consistent appeal outside of the bible belt and deep south anymore. The good news is you can probably count on those 22 states (159 electoral votes) through just about anything. Anybody who voted for Bush twice, then McCain in 2008, probably will pretty much vote for anything with an "R" next to their name no matter what happens.

Will the last moderate Republican to leave please turn off the lights?

Today's big news is that moderate Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has switched parties, and will now caucus with the Democrats. Now some of this is pure political self-interest. He barely survived a primary challenge by conservative Pat Toomey in 2004, eking out a 51%-49% victory. Toomey looks set to challenge Specter from the right again in 2010, and a recent poll showed Toomey routing Specter 51% - 30%. Specter knows he would lose a Republican primary, particularly with many moderate Republicans having become Democrats in this swing state in past few years (Thanks, Bush/Cheney). His only chance was to run as a Democrat.

But this is about more than Specter's own political ambition. The Republican party has a huge problem right now. Their tilt to the right in the past decade - socially, religiously, and economically - have marginalized them and made them a regional party, based in the deep south. In recent elections, they have seen the Democratic party take every New England Congressional seat, expand into the growing southwest, take the industrial midwest, consolidate the coasts, turn Virginia into a blue state, and even capture states like Indiana and North Carolina in the 2008 Presidential race. As Specter himself noted "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."

Specter was one of only three real "moderate" Republican Senators, and even that was somewhat debatable. And you have to assume that Maine won't be electing many Republicans to the U.S. Senate once Collins and Snowe eventually leave the institution. Basically, the Republicans have lost the middle. Voters in swing districts saw the GOP's move to the far right and elected Democrats to replace them in 2006 and 2008, leaving generally only those Republicans in safe seats in very conservative districts. Their national face is now people like Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele. That's not a way to appeal to moderates or expand the party's ever shrinking base. Nor is picking off your few remaining moderates, like Specter, with primary challenges from the right.

Thoughts on the CDP convention

I only made it up for part of the California Democratic convention, but there were a number of interesting things that transpired. John Burton, long-time political power broker, is the new Chair of the party. To give you an idea of how powerful he is, you can just look at where the convention was held- Sacramento. Normally, the convention alternates between Northern and Southern California. Two years ago it was in San Diego, last year San Jose- traditionally, it would have been back in SoCal this year. Burton, however, initially thought he might face a serious contender for party chair...so he had the convention held in Sacramento so that a) legislators (many of whom owe Burton for past favors) and their proxies would have no excuse for missing the convention and b) to keep the convention out of the backyard of his potential challenger.

There is only one person I know who is not impressed by John Burton's power- Reid Lawrence. Young Reid attended the Contra Costa Central Committee holiday party and John Burton was in attendance to announce his candidacy. When John Burton would finish a statement, Reid repeatedly (and loudly) responded "Oh yeah?" I escorted Reid out of the room before he made an enemy for life. Reid then proceeded to almost knock over a 30 ft. Christmas tree.

The gubernatorial contest is starting to grab people's attention. Gavin Newsom presented himself as the dynamic, innovative mayor who knows how to get things done (he may also know how to get things down, but I'll leave that alone). Jerry Brown claims the mantle of experienced operator with the backbone to battle the Republicans. Newsom certainly seemed to win the support of a lot of Young Dems, but most people I talked to rate Brown as the early favorite right now. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was conspicuously absent from the Convention. Rumor had it that he didn't want to appear to be running for Governor until after he has started his second term as Mayor of LA. The most popular event of the Convention was a Young Dems block party on Saturday night that had two main attractions- Newsom and Wyclef Jean.

One of the cooler things of the weekend was that Hillary Crosby knocked off the incumbent Eric Bradely to become the new Controller of the state party. Hillary ran an amazing campaign for an office that many people had never heard of. Her campaign team personally lobbied every delegate and identified her supporters. It was a real tribute to the power of the grassroots to see her pull of the victory.

If you were at the convention, please share your thoughts and let me know what I missed.

Texas leaving the country?

Last week, Governor Perry hinted that Texas just may succeed from the United States if Obama continues to pass policies that the conservative state doesn't agree with. The consensus is that Perry doesn't really want to leave the Union, so much as he is posturing politically, trying to shore up his support with the right wing for a likely primary battle with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. But this begs the question - why is the right wing so excited by talk of succession? I thought these were the guys who love America? The guys who never miss a chance to wave the flag and talk about what patriots they are? But now, just three months after having lost one election, suddenly they can't leave America soon enough? As First Read put it, "Imagine the outcries of patriotism (or lack thereof) if Massachusetts or New York hinted at secession during the Bush years."

Indeed, Texas Republicans are pretty split on the issue, with 48% thinking it would be better to stick with America, and 48% thinking the state would be better off if it were independent. And this isn't a state that has been somehow frozen out of political power, they just had the U.S. President for 8 years! As Kos asks, "Since you've spent the last eight years saying "America, love it or leave it", is that an admission that you don't love America? Because we liberals - We loved it and stayed, even when your idiot of a president was trashing the place."

Fivethirtyeight.com takes an interesting look at the political ramifications of Texas leaving. Basically, the Republicans would lose 2 Senators, a bunch of House seats, and George Bush wouldn't have become President in 2000 (or it would have taken some real magic by the Supreme Court). To highlight what a bad candidate John Kerry was, Kerry would have still lost in 2004 even if Texas's electoral votes are removed. I'm pretty sure Kerry would have found a way to lose even if the whole election was just California, Vermont and D.C.

But all this talk about Presidents and succession misses the truly important point. With Texas out of the Union, there is no way Mack Brown's public whining in 2004 would have jumped the University of Texas mysteriously ahead of Cal in the final BCS poll, and Cal would have finally made a Rose Bowl. Not that I'm still bitter or anything.

"A mixed bag of badassery"

We have talked a bit about the Navy SEALs and the stunning rescue that took place, but I just came across this great quote today from the Navy Times from one of the sailors on the USS Bainbridge when asked about the Navy SEALs who had been on board...

“If I had to describe them in one way, it would be ‘badass,’ ” said a Bainbridge crew member about the embarked special warfare operators. He asked that his name not be used so he could speak candidly. “All kinds of uniforms and weapons. It was a mixed bag of badassery.”

If the SEALs ever wanted a new motto for the group, that would be one of my top picks.

Did Steele blow off the Jews for Tyson?

RNC Chair Michael Steele, who is the brother of Mike Tyson's second wife, attended the premiere of the new documentary "Tyson" but then skipped out the next morning on a scheduled speech to a group of reform Jewish leaders. I'm not sure that Steele will make it to 2010 in his current job. But I will continue to uphold my promise that I will look for every opportunity to mention that the RNC Chairman is the former brother-in-law of my buddy Mike Tyson.

First Lady sneaks out for burgers!

As though Jon and I needed another reason to like her (from MSNBC):

"I went to Five Guys and nobody knew it," she said, naming a popular chain of hamburger restaurants. "It was good."

Big John jumps in

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi announced today that he wants to be my Congressman. Once Ellen Tauscher is confirmed for a State Department post by the US Senate, the 10th Congressional District will have a special election. It must be hard for Garamendi to walk away from his gubernatorial race since it is obvious he really wanted the job- this was the 4th time he was running for Governor, dating back to 1982. With Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom in the race (and potentially Antonio Villaraigosa), Garamendi had little or no chance of winning the nomination.

Several folks are wondering why Garamendi is passing up a chance to take on Republican Dan Lungren in the 3rd CD. Apparently the Garamendi ranch manages to straddle both the 3rd and the 10th CDs (pretty shrewd property).

If Garamendi doesn't win in the 10th this year, will he run in the 3rd next year? He could reuse his Garamendi for Congress materials. Or, would he then run for reelection as Lt. Gov.? I think Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell would be a logical candidate for Lt. Gov., but I haven't heard any intentions other than running for Governor.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times?

I think we can all agree Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an evil man, one of the major architects of the 9/11 attacks, and a real enemy of the United States of America. I'm not even going to get into the debate about if waterboarding constitutes torture, and what - if anything - should be done to those that authorized its use or carried it out.

But even if we were to assume both that 1) he had valuable intelligence and 2) torture can get you that information reliably, doesn't 183 times seem like kind of a high number? I had always imagined we waterboarded these high value captives once or twice to scare the hell out of them, make them think they were going to drown, and hopefully get some useful intelligence from them. But 183 times? Seems like kind of a random number.

What happened after the 182nd time they waterboarded him where our interrogators thought "you know, I think just one more and he might crack?".

And what happened after the 183rd time where they thought "OK, I'm now sure that's everything we are going to get out of him"? Why not a 184th? You know, just to be extra sure? Maybe during the 183rd Khalid Sheikh Mohammed starting thinking "this is getting pretty old, maybe I should just tell them what they want."

The argument for waterboarding is that its an effective technique used to gather critical information. But if you have to do it 183 times, how effective is it exactly? You may get someone to confess to you just by sitting them in a warm jacuzzi and asking them the same question over and over and over until you get to 183 times - they might just get tired of the relentless nagging.

Reports are that Abu Zubaydah was "only" waterboarded 83 times. Does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed just roll his eyes whenever Zabaydah is bragging about what he went through to other prisoners? Does the Guinness Book of World Records have a category for this?

In all seriousness, I also wonder if these releases by the Obama administration will actually backfire, and in some way work to undercut the gut reaction many people have that waterboarding is, of course, torture? I mean if you can do something 266 times to 2 people, and both are still fine, how bad can it be?

Is Obama tough enough? - Part 2

Lately, the GOP has been stepping up their attacks on Obama for being "weak" on foreign policy, criticizing him for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and for what they saw as Obama "apologizing" for America's past actions during his trips abroad. We've seen the attacks come from the usual array of right wing elected officials, former officials, and pundits. It's not a new line of attack, throughout the whole 2008 campaign they argued Obama was too soft on foreign policy and military affairs. Indeed its the same argument they have been making against Democrats for decades. And its often been successful for them politically (just ask Presidents Kerry or Dukakis - oh, wait), so its no surprise they are trying to slap the label on Obama as well early in his Presidency.

Personally, I'm not bothered by Obama shaking hands with a foreign leader we oppose. Nor am I upset that Obama admits that America has not been perfect, even as we are a force for good in the world. These are minor symbolic acts. It's a sign of America's strength as a world power that we can deal with people we oppose, and admit when we are wrong. We aren't a petulant teenager - we are the world's most powerful country, and an example to the rest of the globe.

Bush isolated North Korea and Iran, called them both evil, and refused to talk to either country until late in his administration where he began to engage North Korea. Where did that show of "strength" get us? North Korea restarted its weapons program under Bush's watch, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. Iran spent 8 years rapidly accelerating its own nuclear program and is now far closer to having the ability to create nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, held four summit meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev - a man he once claimed ran the "evil empire". These direct talks with our long time enemy produced, among other things, the INF treaty which reduced intermediate nuclear and conventional missiles. Reagan shook hands with a man many saw as an totalitarian dictator, yet parlayed the talks into achieving goals that he wanted for the country. Bush shunned regimes he (rightfully) despised, and both North Korea and Iran spent 8 years accelerating their nuclear programs. It's not a sign of weakness to negotiate, any more than its a sign of strength to refuse to. As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

At the end of the day, results are what counts. If Obama ends up harming U.S. interests by negotiating bad deals with Venezuela, and getting suckered by Hugo Chavez - then he should be rightfully criticized. But for shaking the hand of a foreign leader at an international summit? Please. Because we all know that Republicans would never shake hands with anybody our country dislikes or finds distasteful (see picture above).

Imagine for a second if John McCain had been elected President in 2008. Now imagine that in the first couple of months President McCain had increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, slowed the pace of the drawdown in Iraq from what the left had been demanding, increased the military budget by 4%, kept on Bush's Secretary of Defense, approved predator drone strikes on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, refused to retroactively prosecute those in the CIA who had tortured Al Qaeda suspects, and authorized a successful Navy SEAL operation to kill Somali pirates and rescue captured Americans. The right wing pundits would be besides themselves talking about what a strong President McCain turned out to be, and how muscular his foreign policy was. But of course it was Obama who did these things, and since he is a liberal Democrat he is therefore "weak" on foreign policy and the military.

Dick being Dick

Dick Cheney put down his vial of goat's blood long enough to do an interview with Sean Hannity this week. Cheney was the most secretive dude since that other famous Dick (Nixon) so it makes it especially enjoyable that he is now calling on the Obama administration to release documents about waterboarding: "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

Cheney hasn't always been such a huge fan of transparency. There were the undisclosed locations and the fact that the VP's residence vanished (Cheney's dark magic, me thinks). Here's how historian Edward Larson described him: Commentators and comedians have ridiculed Vice President Dick Cheney for invoking executive privilege to deny one set of documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee while, at the same time, asserting that his office is not part of the executive branch so as to deny another set to the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives. As a historian, though, I admire the Vice President’s chutzpah. Rather than being laughably ridiculous, his seemingly conflicting and transparently self-serving claims on these matters have at least enough historical support to qualify as artful dodges rather than baseless evasions.



Part I



Part II
Here's a link (embedding disabled for some reason).

Is Obama tough enough?

I think the graph speaks for itself. (from glass tumbler)

Fun with teabagging

Last week's tax day "tea parties" are over, but the political left sure had a field day with them - from the hypocrisy of the right suddenly caring about deficits after the last 8 years to the prominent role Fox News played in the events. But few had as much fun with the protests as Keith Olbermann did. Not sure how he managed to keep a straight face as he read the news with one teabagging double entendre after another, but here are two of his more amusing segments for anyone who missed them:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CA 10th Congressional District

We mostly have a national political bent here at No Jibber Jabber, but this post is a bit more local. My Congresswoman, Ellen Tauscher, has been tapped by President Obama to serve under Hillary Clinton over at the State Department. If and when (and the expectation is when since it doesn't appear to be a controversial pick) Taucher is confirmed by the Senate, she will resign from Congress and a special election will be held to fill her seat.

Congressional seats don't come up that often in the Bay Area and there is a whole lot of interest when they do. Term limits in the California Legislature have made Congressional seats even more appealing. For instance, back in 1992, Ted Lempert and Anna Eshoo battled for the Democratic nomination to succeed Tom Campbell. Eshoo pulled out a narrow victory and has served in Congress ever since. In the ensuing years, Lempert was termed out of the Assembly and then had to wait 2 years to run for the State Senate. He was defeated by the then-incumbent Assemblyman Joe Simitian in 2004. Lempert has not run for elected office since then.

In the 10th, the presumed front-runner is Senator Mark DeSaulnier. A long-time County Supervisor, DeSaulnier was elected to the Assembly in 2006 and then he and Tom Torlakson switched jobs in 2008 (Torlakson was termed out of the Senate but had two years left that he could serve in the Assembly.) Torlakson is running for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2010 and quickly endorsed DeSaulnier to be Tauscher's successor. Joining Torlakson in endorsing DeSaulnier were Tauscher herself and Congressman George Miller. Miller is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and represents an adjoining district to the 10th.

Many people presumed that with these powerful endorsements that DeSaulnier would clear the field of credible challengers. Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan quickly let it be known that she was interested in the Congressional seat as well. This caught a number of people by surprise because she had elected in November of 2008 in a closely contested race in the 15th Assembly District. Over $3 million was raised to help Buchanan win what had been the last Republican held legislative seat in the Bay Area. If she were to leave her Assembly seat, it would instantly become a top GOP priority to retake it.

Just as we were starting to consider what would happen if Buchanan and DeSaulnier squared off, rumors percolated that Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi was looking at the race. Personally, I thought he was legally obligated to run for Governor every 8 years, but apparently there was a loop hole that might let him run. Big John was not distracted by the fact that he doesn't live in the district. I give him credit for recognizing that the Garemendi for Governor bandwagon was not really a juggernaut.

All 3 potential candidates came to the Democratic Central Committee last Thursday. Buchanan gave a succinct update on the state's financial position (not pretty) and merely stated that she'd have an announcement in the next few weeks. DeSaulnier stated he'd be running if/when there was a vacancy and then talked about the budget situation and the upcoming May propositions (he's voting for them, but doesn't like them).

I think everyone was really curious when Garamendi got up and spoke. He gave a very boilerplate speech about his current mix of anger and optimism. It was a very polished speech, but one that seemed like it could be given anywhere. His staff member gave out some very slick flyers- I was amused that they read "Garamendi 2010"- have flyers, will run. He referred to his "many friends who suggested I run", but didn't name any of them.

My take on the race is that DeSaulnier would beat either Buchanan or Garamendi in a two-person race. If all theree of them run, well, it gets more interesting. Buchanan would certainly seem to be helped by Garamendi entering- if she gets a large portion of women voters, that could be her path to victory.

One of the other fun parts of this situation is that we might have another game of electoral musical chairs. It will be hard to top the famous one in the East Bay, which involved free chicken dinners.

Also, my friend Sean Mykael has the case for Garamendi running in the 3rd Congressional district.

National Popular Vote Movement

So far, four states have voted to award their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the most total popular votes nationally, rather than who wins the state itself. For example, if Texas had adopted this plan for the 2008 election, the 34 Texas electoral votes would have gone to Obama (the national vote winner) rather than McCain (the Texas vote leader). This is part of a national movement trying to go around, and functionally eliminate, the electoral college and make the winner of the national popular vote the winner of the Presidential election. The system only goes into effect though if states totaling at least 270 electoral votes - a majority - agree to it. The four states that have already approved are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii - a total of 50 electoral votes.

Whatever you think about the electoral college as a mechanism for electing the President, from a practical partisan standpoint this appears to be bad for the Democratic party. So far, its all reliably blue states that have approved the national popular vote plan. If the vast majority of an eventual 270 votes worth of states in this system are blue states it would basically give the GOP one extra way to win a Presidential contest. A GOP candidate could win by:

1) getting the most electoral votes, like now, or by

2) getting the most popular votes (since 270 or so blue state electoral votes would be required to vote for the Republican national vote winner, even if all those states voted Democrat).

A Democrat could only win in this system by winning the popular vote. If a Democrat won 300 electoral votes, but lost the national popular vote 65,000,000 to 64,999,999 then about 270 of those 300 electoral votes would have to switch to the Republican national vote winner. But the same wouldn't be true in reverse if the pattern of only blue states approving this plan continues.

Or am I just misreading this? Always a real possibility.