Local Congressional Battles bring Victory

Yes Charlie Brown ended up losing to John Doolittle on Tuesday night, but from all accounts no one was acting like this was a loss. You see, Charlie Brown went toe-to-toe with an eight term incumbent in a District that have a 16-point registration advantage to Republicans and Charlie Brown gave it everything he had and gave Doolittle all that he wanted. In the end, he lost just 49-46--beating Democratic registration by 13 points. That would have been an extremely astounding victory for Democrats.

Brown fought against Doolittle on issues of ethics, his ties to Abramoff, and his support for the war in Iraq. For his efforts, Brown a long-time veteran of the U.S. Airforce, his son serving four tours of duty in Iraq, had his patriotism questioned and his name linked to Sean Penn, Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan.

The interesting thing to watch now will be--will Doolittle get indicted? If he does, Brown is in an excellent position to jump back in and take the Fourth District for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, there is no moral victory in the 11th District. The 11th District, has much more favorable numbers than the Fourth for Democrats, only a 5 to 6 point registration disadvantage. Still Democrats do not fare well in such districts. But don't tell that to Jerry McNerney. McNerney had battled Pombo in 2004 only to lose. This time, he emerged with a solid victory.

McNerney was able to stay within 1200 votes in the more conservative San Joaquin county and make up the difference in the more liberal Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties.

This was a great victory for grass-roots politics. Pombo wants to try to get an overhaul of the Endangered Species Act through the lame-duck Congress, despite the fact that the environment was one of the issues that eventually helped to bring him down.

McNerney is a lesson for Democrats and a victory for people like Howard Dean who has created the 50-state program, trying to find Democrats who can go toe-to-toe with Republicans even in the most conservative of areas. Tuesday night seemed a vindication for those policies.

Now, McNerney is going to Congress and Pombo is going home. Charlie Brown did not win, but Doolittle is going back to Congress a humbled man, knowing that he barely survived one fight of his life, but he faces another--possible indictment of Abramoff money. We'll watch closely these developments and see if Doolittle ends up going back to Northern California as well.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A Vote For Target is a Vote for Doolittle and Pombo?

A reader sent in a link to some of the Target voter guides, it turns out Target has selected eight issues they consider pertinent for their interests and for all of the incumbents they compile a voting record.

First, let's look at John Doolittle, the Republican from the Fourth Congressional District in California, who is locked in a tight battle with Charlie Brown. He voted with Target 7 out of 8 times. Now the nice thing about the Target site (see I can give them praise) is that they give us a comparison as to where they stand versus where we might stand. So they list five voting ratings. The National Association of Manufactures, Doolittle had a 90% score. US Chamber of Commerce, 93%. BIPAC’s Prosperity Project, 91%. Those three are conservative, the next two are liberal. With the AFL-CIO, Doolittle scored a 7%. League of Conservation Voters, 0%. So let’s put this into perspective. Doolittle voted with labor only 7% of the time and for the environment on zero votes, whereas he voted with the conservative groups 90% of the time. Not a surprise since he is a conservative Republican. He voted with Target 87.5% of the time almost mirroring his conservative voting record. Which one of is closer to your values?

Richard Pombo, Republican from the 11^th Congressional District is locked in a tight battle with Jerry McNerney. He voted with Target 8 out of 8 times. He had a 90 percent rating from the National Association of Manufacturers, 97 from the US Chamber of Commerce, 100% with BIPAC. And on the liberal side—0% with AFL-CIO and 5% with the League of Conservation Voters. Again, 100% with Target. Which side of the fence is Target on? It seems obvious.

For the sake of comparison, I also looked up the voting record of Mike Thompson, the Democrat who represents much of Yolo County and the North Coast of California. Very different picture. He did vote with Target on trade issues, but not health care and benefits and not on privacy. So he voted with them 3 out of 8 times or 37%. How did he score on the other ratings: 38 percent with the Manufactures, 50 percent with the Chamber of Commerce, 20 percent with BIPAC. On the liberal side, 87% with the AFL-CIO and 90% with the League of Conservation Voters. And of course, 37.5% with Target.

It’s kind of scary how closely Target’s votes match up with the three other conservative ratings. And of course, they are the opposite of the AFL-CIO and League of Conservation Voters.

So again, it’s a clear choice. If you support labor and support the environment, you should not be supporting Target. Yes we know they have cheap socks and underwear (and deodorant Mr. Rifkin), but in terms of our values, Davis values, Target doesn’t support them. If you want Doolittle and Pombo to win, you should support Target. If you want Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney to win, you should oppose Target.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Cal Aggie's Criticism of Brown and McNerney Misses the Mark

Someone has sent me a copy of the Op-ed from Thursday in California Aggie that attacks Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney for failing to show up at a UC Davis campus event. The op-ed piece is filled with errors and inaccuracies.

First, the charge that the campaigns “they disrespected the campus population and demonstrated that the student vote is not a priority for their campaigns.” The UC Davis campus is nowhere near the districts for either campaign. The campaigns had been invited by a local political operative and the College Democrats of UC Davis to recruit volunteers to help with these campaigns. Unfortunately given the length of travel time--well over an hour-and-a-half round trip--it seemed better for the candidates to remain in their districts speaking to actual voters and to send surrogates in their place.

Second, “The two men are vying for the opportunity to represent the fourth district, which encompasses several counties in the Sierra Nevada area, including El Dorado and Sacramento.” Actually the two men are fighting for different districts. Brown is opposing Republican incumbent John Doolittle in the 4th district (which encompasses Roseville, Auburn, Lake Tahoe all the way up the eastern side of California's Nevada boarder to Oregon.) McNerney is in the 11^th district, facing incumbent Republican Richard Pombo (which encompasses Stockton, Tracy, down into the south Bay Area.)

Third, “While Stenhouse said his candidate believes young people play an important part in the election, Brown did not have the courtesy to give sufficient notice of his cancellation, thus potentially alienating student voters who showed up to hear him speak.” Potentially alienating the student voters who showed up? Only five students showed up and none of the students who showed up could have voted for them. Only 12 people in total attended the event including the students, the event organizers and the candidate's representatives. The campaigns were hoping to be able to mobilize young volunteers to help with their final effort. Unfortunately, due to the suspected low event turnout and the amount of time that the candidates would have to take out of their busy day, it was determined that it would not be productive use of their time to have the candidates themselves there. Facing many obligations each campaign must judge the value of using their candidate, their limited resoures and their time wisely. One of the lessons that people need to learn about politics is how much work a campaign involves. I’ve been to numerous events that have had to be altered or cancelled because of other commitments and priorities.

Fourth, “Students deserve to hear the political goals of congressional candidates as much as older voters. As such, any campaign official who visits the campus should be prepared and focus on the campaign issues.” The op-ed writer apparently was unaware of the purpose of this rally.

Finally, “With the election less than two weeks away, time is crucial. These candidates must now work to garner the support of student constituents before it's too late.” Again, the op-ed writer apparently has no idea where these districts lie or the fact that none of these students are constituents.

The bottom line is that while the California Aggie is a student paper, they need to do their homework and understand that this rally was not about garnering votes but tapping volunteers. Instead of throwing uneducated accusations towards the Brown and McNerney campaigns, had they done so they would have realized that these two candidates represent districts far from the UC Davis campus but were hoping to tap into the energies of young students to add grassroots workers in the final days of the campaign and had been invited to do just that. I find it illustrative that the op-ed never mentions the number of students (again, five) who actually attended this rally or explains to us what the purpose of the rally was. Unfortunately, the writers do not appear to understand it themselves.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting