Seth in CA (for the summer)

Beware the coming North American community

(Take notice, friends of mine who work at “news” shows: this story is crying out for correspondent coverage.)

I’m glad I’m not the only one concerned by those internationalist Republicans and their plan for a United States of North America.

A concerned citizen writes:

Dreier for `guests’

Unfortunately, the recent letter from Genevieve Clavreul is factually mistaken when it attempts to conceal a statement made by Rep. David Dreier.

A Los Angeles Times article of Dec. 16, 2005, clearly quotes Dreier stating, “Any final bill that emerges from the House and the Senate, must include a guest-worker program both for future migrants and for illegal immigrants already here.”

Appallingly, Dreier is campaigning to legalize up to 30 million illegal immigrants now in our country, rewarding their lawlessness.

According to La Opinion of May 16, 2004, Dreier even agreed with officials at a meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico to work to legalize the greatest possible number of “migrants without legal documents” in the United States. What blatant betrayal of America!

Even worse, Dreier is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which is working to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States into a single “North American Community” by 2010 (see www.spp.gov). This would dissolve our borders at the expense of American sovereignty and independence, which we cannot allow to happen.

The only candidate on the Nov. ballot for Congressional District 26 opposing all forms of “guest worker” or “temporary worker” amnesty for illegal immigrants is Elliott Graham of the American Independent party.

Jan Akers

La Cañada Flintridge

Someone should really call Dreier’s office and ask them where he stands on transnational nation-merging.

A SethInCA Project: Help engage Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews with the Netroots

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, Calitics, and MyDD)

The short version: I’m going to go interview Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews, the Democratic candidate for Congress who’s challenging David Dreier in CA-26. I’d like to encourage her to become involved with the netroots, and as a start I want to reach out to her with your questions. Please post any questions you’d like me to ask her in the comments section.

The long version: Two weeks ago, Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews pulled a major upset and won the Democratic nomination for Congress in the 26th District of California. Her primary opponent and the assumed favorite of the race was Russ Warner, who had made a decent show of fundraising and received the endorsement of Gen. Wesley Clark. But Matthews, who was also the nominee in 2004, pulled an upset and won.

I’ve speculated (dirty tricks?) about the reasons for Warner’s disappointing defeat, but the bottom line is that Matthews is the nominee this year. And if ever there was a year for a turning of the tide in Congress, this is that year. Even if she can’t quite win in this Republican district (46% R to 35% D), she’s still fighting the good fight, not to mention forcing Dreier to spend money defending his seat. Or at least, that’s the hope. In 2004 she came closer than any other challenger in California in her race to unseat closeted Republican David Dreier (54-42). She and two radio hosts gave Dreier hell on immigration, and during the campaign she publicly “came out” and challenged Dreier to do the same. Print media ignored the story, but it got some play on the radio and the web.

I called her office on Friday (guess who answered the phone? Matthews!) to ask for an interview, and her staff agreed. Later this week I hope to head over to campaign headquarters to take some pictures and ask her some questions. My hope isn’t just to ask her some questions, but to try to get her more involved with the netroots. So far, her website is a disaster, but hey, Russ Warner’s spiffy website didn’t win him the nomination.

This is where you come in: please post questions you’d like me to ask her in the comments. (Maybe some advice for her too.) I’ll bring some questions of my own, and we’ll see what happens. Watch SethInCA for the results.

Another blog covering this race

And I thought I was alone. Turns out there’s yet another blog covering the race in CA-26:

In 2004, Dreier outspent Matthews 50 to 1 yet received the lowest percentage of the vote during any of his elections since 1980. 2006 is the year to remove him from Congress. Click here, here and here to remind yourself of some of the reasons David Dreier must go.

Nice to see someone with a healthy sense of optimism for once. As for me, a redesign of Matthews’ website would really, really make me happy. Hmm…

$40k Push Poll?

So far, this is the most intriguing of answers to my question about how the Warner campaign lost it. I wonder where I can get another source on this (from the comments on my MyDD diary):

Wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t heard it myself, but Wes Clark – here in Vegas for the YearlyKos – claimed that Dreier put $40K into a last minute push poll to eliminate Warner

Not terribly surprised if it is true. Matthews is about as an inept as they come. I know quite a few Dems who held their nose and voted for Dreier after hearing the hate she spewed on John and Ken in 2004.

by Estlin on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:16:02 AM EST

(Emphasis added.) How detailed are campaign finance records? Would $40,000 show up as an expenditure if they’re following the rules?

CA-26: An Election Day Mystery

[cross-posted at Daily Kos, MyDD and Calitics]

A week ago, I wrote a diary here asking for suggestions for starting a new blog to cover the race in CA-26. Two nights ago, I watched and reloaded, slightly disbelieving the preliminary results in the Democratic primary in CA-26, David Dreier (R-Closet)’s district. Russ Warner, endorsed by Gen. Wesley Clark, ran on a moderate platform of “protecting the middle class, promoting small business, and supporting our troops, honoring our veterans.” Clark came to the district, raised money for Warner, and even recorded a robocall for him. Warner was supposed to be the best chance in awhile to defeat Dreier, a tough prospect considering Dreier’s power as Rules Committee chairman and the Republican registration advantage in the district (46% R to 35% D).

Meanwhile, Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews, who came out of the closet during the 2004 election and challenged Dreier to do the same ran again. Matthews gave Dreier the closest margin of any reelected congressman in California in 2004 (54-42), thanks in no small part to the anti-Dreier activism of two radio hosts surrounding immigration. Yet Matthews had raised only $516 as of mid-May and $5,361 as of June 1. Her website is a nightmare. Watching the election from afar, I pretty much wrote her off.

So what were the results on election day?

Cynthia Rodriguez Matthews                 12,836   47.0 
Russ Warner                                10,308   37.8 
Hoyt Hilsman                                4,172   15.2 

That was, to say the least, unexpected. So now I pose the question to you: what happened?

I’m trying to decide if a comparison with CA-50 makes sense (of course that was a special election, not a primary). In assessing Busby’s loss, Matt Stoller argues that Bilbray ran to the left of Busby, who ran as a moderate and highlighted the “Culture of Corruption,” but didn’t really motivate the base. Kos sounds the same message, writing:

As I travelled the country extensively on my book tour I heard the same points over and over again, in city after city. Regular activists out in the states understand these concepts. But the DC bubble politicians and consultants simply don’t get it.

The “culture of corruption” is a nice secondary theme to weave into our broader narrative, but it can’t be the message on which we pin our 2006 hopes.”We’re better managers” won’t inspire our troops to head to battle.

This will be a base election. Inspire and motivate.

See Montana Democrats like Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester for a taste of how that’s done. The corruption message helped MT Dems take over the governor’s mansion and legislature in 2004, but that was just a sub-thread of their broader message.

They, and others like Paul Hackett would’ve won CA-50.

Maybe Warner lost because, despite his big name endorsement, he didn’t motivate the base. Or maybe it was just the low turnout due to other factors. Or an inexperienced campaign staff. Whatever the reason, it was quite an upset, and something of a mystery.

Woah, woah

I got a little carried away (see below), what with some free time on my hands, a working Internet connection, and a couple days of blogging to catch up on. This is from my walk through Claremont, up Harvard Ave:

And here’s a summary of all of the posts below.

• Election day is tomorrow in California. Go vote and volunteer.
• Dreier, the GOP’s point man on lobbying reform, voted for corruption.
• Speaking of lobbying reform, what happened to that?
• Gen. Wesley Clark puts out the call on behalf of Russ Warner. We’ve got the audio!
• Oh yeah, I’m here, finally. First day was good.

Election Day Tomorrow

Tomorrow is Election Day! Go vote!

And if you’ve got some time:

If you are going to be in CA June 6 come by campaign headquarters for Russ Warner in Rancho Cucamonga, 10064 Foothill Boulevard, between Haven and Archibald. We can use all the help we can get.

Map of 10064 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Google Maps – Yahoo! Maps – MapQuest

Most of my blogging has focused on David Dreier and Russ Warner, and that’s not just because Gen. Wesley Clark has his back. Both will almost certainly be their party’s nominee for November. Nonethless, there are other Republicans, Democrats, and independents running, including Democrat Cynthia Matthews, who came shockingly close to unseating Dreier in 2004. Here’s the complete run down, from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

Continue reading Election Day Tomorrow…

Lest we forget…Dreier voted for corruption

As I mentioned earlier, breaking the ethics truce might be good politics for November because it’ll get Republicans on the record. Of course some of them, David Dreier included, are already on the record as being pro-corruption. As Josh Marshall reminded us in January:

Ahhh, The DeLay Rule, truly the muckraker’s gift that keeps on giving. The DeLay Rule was the rule House Republicans passed in mid-November 2004 to allow Tom DeLay to stay in charge of the House of Representatives even after he was indicted. The vote itself and the subsequent, slow erosion of support for it turned out to be a good proxy for who in the GOP caucus was a down-the-line DeLay man or woman, wiling to bend pretty much any rule to cover for DeLay and his House machine.

Moderates like Chris Shays were perhaps the most prominent and vocal in their opposition to the Rule. But what opposition there was stretched across ideological lines in the caucus, pulling in a number of the more conservative members. At least conservatives of a certain turn.

So today a friend points out to me that Speaker Denny Hastert has tapped California Rep. David Dreier (R) as his ethics czar, the one who’s going to clean the place up and start cranking on a ‘lobbying reform’ bill.

So where did Dreier come down on The DeLay Rule?

As you’d expect, pretty much a down-the-line DeLay Rule man.

Here’s a copy of the letter he sent constituents over a year ago defending his vote.

Why was the DeLay Rule necessary? Because “it became apparent that by simply bringing an indictment in any court, a local political operative could remove a Congressional leader at a key or sensitive time by bringing an indictment against him or her for political purposes … The rule change was a necessary step needed to remove an incentive for a partisan prosecutor to make a frivolous or baseless accusation against a Member of the House.”

So now Dreier is the guy to crack down on law-breaking. But a year ago his agenda was cracking down on prosecutors.

Clean up that place

Running to fill disgraced Rep. Duke Cunningham’s seat, it’s no wonder Francine Busby has put ethics at the center of her campaign. We’ll find out tomorrow how well that goes. Even if it doesn’t put her over the top, I think it’s still a good strategy, considering the GOP-controlled government has failed to pass any ethics reform at all, much less anything meaningful:

The stench of scandal on Capitol Hill is getting stronger five months after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to influence-peddling charges, but a lobbying overhaul has yet to see the light of day.

The Senate passed its version at the end of March and the House bill was approved in early May. In the month since, the House has not taken the next step, naming negotiators for talks with the Senate on a compromise bill.

…It was only in January that Republicans and Democrats battled for the ethical high ground. They proposed to outlaw privately funded travel, ban meals and gifts from lobbyists, and slow the move of former lawmakers to lobbying jobs.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., who has led GOP lobbying efforts in the House, said at the time he hoped to pass a bill by the end of February.

That did not happen for two reasons, according to an analyst.

Congress stumbled over how to rein in lobbyists without violating their constitutional right to petition the government, and lawmakers were sidetracked by immigration legislation, extending tax breaks and other priorities, said Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

The public has not pressed the lobbying issue because “most ordinary Americans really don’t think much can be done,” Baker said. “There’s a built-in cynicism” about corruption in Washington.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, says lawmakers may be misreading public attitude. “The public understands corruption, understands it’s wrong and wants it eliminated,” he said.

Dreier’s spokeswoman, Jo Maney, said GOP leaders could appoint negotiators to the House-Senate conference soon after Congress returns from the Memorial Day recess. She said the effort to reach consensus on the bill has been a challenge because some lawmakers are opposed to any changes while others favor revamping the entire system.

Thanks for that great explanation Maney. I’m with Wertheimer. Where the hell’s our lobbying reform? Maybe it’s for the best. Dreier’s lobbying reform was a joke. If Democrats win the House in November there’ll be a better chance to pass some real ethics reform. And maybe, as Mark Kleiman is always saying, Democrats should break the ethics truce now–and use that to make cleaning up DC a big part of the platform for November. Getting Republicans on record as not willing to do anything to clean up the mess sure won’t hurt Democratic candidates. More on this soon…

Leaving for California Tomorrow

My flight is at 8 am. Darnit.

While I’m en route, read this: Congress hopefuls aided by party splits.

…

Dreier has been tested before. In 2004, he won re-election by the thinnest margin in his career and the smallest margin of any incumbent member of Congress in California.

“I am looking for a big victory Tuesday,” Dreier said.

Walking precincts, Dreier said illegal immigration and border security top the list of concerns. He said the election is a chance to clarify his record.

“A lot of people have tried to distort my record,” Dreier said. “My message is: Don’t believe what anyone offers you in a statement, look at the record. In fact I just sent out a mailer \ saying essentially that.”

As of May 17, Dreier had spent $645,800 in a race that pits him against Sardo and Melvin, both of whom say illegal immigration is their reason for running. Dreier had a balance of $2.98 million.

Sardo, 56, challenged Dreier in 2004, winning only 16 percent of the vote.

“Seems to be a lot of discontent in the district with Dreier,” said Sardo, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and small- business owner in La Ca ada Flintridge. “People know that David Dreier has been asleep at the switch all these years” when it comes to immigration reform.

Milton, a 63-year-old political neophyte from Walnut, used an analogy to express his dissatisfaction with Dreier’s record on illegal immigration.

“If you are having a party at your house and people are coming in through your front door and you don’t want them to, shouldn’t you close it?” Milton asked. “He has had 26 years to close the door.”

Sardo had spent about $45,000 on his campaign as of May 17. That is a tenth of Dreier’s total spending.

Milton had not raised enough money to trigger a campaign disclosure report.