Are Republican House Candidates Allowed To Be Gay For Pay? Let's watch This One Play Out In CA-26

Last year CA-26-- a Southern California congressional district that includes Thousand Oaks and Westlake Village at the upper end of the San Fernando Valley plus most of Ventura County, including a bit of Simi Valley, plus Moorpark, Camarillo, Santa Paula, Oxnard and Fillmore-- gave Hillary a landslide victory over Trumpanzee: 57.9% to 36.0%. Obama had beaten McCain there, 56-41% and beaten Romney 54-44%. The PVI went from D+4 in 2015 to D+7 after the election. The district has a lousy congresswoman, pointless New Dem careerist Julia Brownley. ProgressivePunch rates her crappy voting record a very solid "F." Despite being an utter waste of a blue seat, she's expected to easily win reelection. As of the September 30 reporting deadline she already had $2,447,043 in her warchest. There are 4 Republicans wasting their time running against her-- Antonio Sabato Jr., Shane Skelton, Jeffrey Burum and Rafael Dagnesses, with Sabato, a Trumpist former porn star, underwear model and low-grade actor leading the pack.

Conservatives feel uncomfortable with Sabato, who more a fascist than an actual conservative and... well, he used to have sex with men on film for money-- and conservatives feel funny about that. Yesterday, the L.A. Times gave Sabato his moment of glory with a story by Seema Mehta. "Antonio Sabato Jr.," she wrote, "is best known as a soap opera star and Calvin Klein underwear model. But parts of his acting career are raising eyebrows among some conservatives as the Republican and early supporter of President Trump runs for Congress in California." Local Republicans "are saying movie roles in which Sabato simulated sex with a man and appeared nude disqualify him from representing the GOP." Republicans prefer gay sex in the closet, not on the silver screen. Sabato was born in Rome but his family moved to the U.S. when he was 13. He likes to call himself an immigrant who supports the wall and he's proud of his ugly bigotry, having insisted that Obama was a Muslim. To make upper his gay pornography he's dated loads of women and knocked up as many as possible and has children with several unmarried women. He's generally considered a filthy pig by anyone who knows him.

Ret. Air Force Maj. Jeffrey Burum, another Republican in the race, deemed the movies “pornography” and called on Sabato to end his campaign.

“His behavior is inconsistent with anything I would want from a congressional leader. It’s also inconsistent with a party which has always favored traditional family values, which do not include porn,” Burum said.

Sabato and his campaign disputed the description of his work as pornographic.

Charles Moran, a Sabato advisor and the former president of California Log Cabin Republicans, said that while Ventura County may be more conservative than neighboring Los Angeles County, many people in the entertainment industry live there and are unlikely to care about Sabato’s previous roles.

“They know what it takes to be a successful actor in the industry, and anybody trying to make Antonio Sabato Jr.’s career and job choices salacious does so without really knowing the value of the craft,” he said, predicting the controversy would have no impact on the race. “For a long time, gays have played straight, straights have played gay. A good actor can do this, and many do. Antonio Sabato Jr. is no different.”

Sabato noted the movies Testosterone and Deadly Skies, which were both filmed more than 10 years ago, are part of a three-decade-long acting career.

“I’ve done many movies. I’ve done things I’m proud of and things I’m not so proud of, that’s just the way any actor works,” he said. “They don’t know what kind of congressman I’ll be, the work ethic I have.”

Sabato, 45, is best known for roles on General Hospital and Melrose Place in the 1990s, and The Bold and the Beautiful from 2005 to 2006. He has appeared in many other scripted television shows and movies, music videos and reality programs.

As first reported on the Ventura County website Citizens Journal, Sabato’s critics are protesting his roles in two films where he plays a gay man.

In 2003’s Testosterone, Sabato plays an Argentine man who mysteriously deserts his writer boyfriend. He appears fully nude in the film.



Three years later, Sabato played an Air Force officer who was dismissed under the military policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in Deadly Skies. The film, about an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, contains a scene where Sabato appears partly nude and simulates having sex with another man.

Unlike films that would traditionally be considered pornography, the movies starred mainstream Hollywood actors, including Jennifer Coolidge, Michael Moriarty, David Sutcliffe, Rae Dawn Chong and Sonia Braga, and don’t comprise solely sexual content. Testosterone premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and was reviewed by the New York Times, which described it as “a shaky comic noir larded with soft-core sex.”

...Sabato is a vocal supporter of Trump and spoke on his behalf at the Republican National Convention in 2016, efforts that he said have hampered his acting career.

“I was blacklisted from Hollywood,” Sabato said, adding he had no regret for supporting Trump and has been to the White House since the election.

“I’m proud of our president. Look at everything he has been able to do in such a short amount of time,” he said.

Critics also note that Sabato posed for Playgirl magazine. He appeared on the cover and inside a 1993 issue devoted to “Soap Studs.” He did not appear nude and was covered with strategically placed bubbles.

So polite! And prudish! Who do we think we're fooling here? Even if Sabato's heart belongs to Trump now, it's well known that he used to put out for modeling jobs and TV roles and did dozens of gay porn movies and photo shoots. He would be a perfect Republican candidate. I hope he wins the GOP primary and runs against Brownley. She deserves him!

Ratings Changes-- From A "Leans Dem" Down To A "Tilts Dem"

Rich, conservative New Dem in trouble with the Democratic base back home…I wonder why!

The Rothenberg Political Report (Roll Call) changed some of it's November ratings today. Stuart Rothenberg's and Nathan Gonzales' Beltway-oriented ratings changes are worthless. The silliest one day was moving Julia Brownley's reelection contest (CA-26) from "safe" down a tick to "Democrat favored." Either one is accurate in the real world but in their own world it is a demotion. And what was it based on? It seems to be based entirely on what the NRCC told them. Their analysis didn't include a word about the preferred GOP candidate, Tony Strickland, backing out of the race to run in another district. Instead:

When the Republican wave hit in 2010, it lost virtually all of its strength before it got to the West Coast. Most Democrats in competitive races west of the Rocky Mountains held on.

So Democrats are in a precarious electoral position this cycle, and it’s unclear whether some districts that look Democratic on paper could be a struggle to hold in November.

Barack Obama carried California’s 26th District by 10 points in 2012 and by a whopping 16 points in 2008. But Republicans believe that state Assemblyman Jeff Gorell is a unique candidate who can run a competitive race against Democratic Rep. Julia Brownley.

"Republicans believe that state Assemblyman Jeff Gorell is a unique candidate who can run a competitive race against Democratic Rep. Julia Brownley." Well, by all means, change that rating! Not going into Rothenberg predictions-- not ever-- are findings like this from reputable, nonpartisan pollsters: Reason-Rupe/ Princeton Survey Research Associates International: 62% of Americans oppose the subsidies that the federal government gives to oil, gas and coal companies or from the Pew Research Center: "65% of Americans favor setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change." And this contrast:

But Rothenberg's silliest "analysis" today came in IL-10. I don't even disagree with the finding, just how they reached it. Short version: Dold has a chance to beat Schneider in a rematch. They downgraded the rating from "leans Democrat" to "Tilts Democrat." Here's the Rothenberg version:

Illinois’ 10th District was drawn by Democrats to elect a Democrat, and it did just that in 2012 when Brad Schneider defeated GOP Rep. Robert Dold.

But Schneider won very narrowly, 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent, a margin of a slightly more than 3,000 votes out of 264,000 cast. And he did it with President Barack Obama running at the top of the ballot. This year, Obama is not on the ballot, he’s more unpopular and Dold is running again.

This race likely won’t be decided by money. Both men should be able to raise and spend enough money to compete.

But it will likely be decided by Democrats’ ability to define Dold as being too conservative for the district, and Republicans banking on Schneider not yet being entrenched in the suburban Chicago territory.

This race could go down to the wire once again. We’re changing our Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call rating of the race from Leans Democrat to Tossup/Tilts Democrat.

The reason the "Democrats’ ability to define Dold as being too conservative for the district" comes into play is because the wretched New Dem incumbent, Brad Schneider, is also too conservative for the district. His consistent pattern of voting against progressive legislation and crossing the aisle in a way Democrats in red districts are told to do by the DCCC, will only do one thing in IL-10 (with its D+8 PVI)-- keep progressives home sitting on their hands. No mention of any of that by Rothenberg or Gonzales and no peak into Schneider's ugly conservative voting record which seems custom-made to win over Republican voters in Republican-leaning districts. If Schneider's record comes into play it will be a classic case of voter discouragement, a Steve Israel specialty when it come sot advising his lamest and most credulous freshmen.

Republicans Fret As GOP Brand Continues To Disintegrate In California

Santa Clarita Assemblyman Scott Wilk is the kind of commonsense, mainstream Republican from the old days-- not hopeless... and still worth reasoning with. Today he's the co-chair of elections for the Assembly GOP Caucus and he's worried that some of his sleazy colleagues, particularly the ones in Washington, are spoiling his party's brand even more than it has already been. He was optimistic about holding three Republican seats against strong Democratic attacks next year. And now he's worried. "Unfortunately," he wrote yesterday for the FlashReport, "some people place their personal agenda and ambitions over what is best for our country." His congressman is Republican Buck McKeon, who he used to work for, and it looks like that is exactly who he was referring to.

The 25th congressional seat has been represented for the past 20 plus years by Republican Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon. Speculation in Washington, D.C. is the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee will retire at the end of the session.

However, in local media, McKeon’s spokeswoman has repeatedly said he plans to run for re-election. The northern Los Angeles County-based CD 25 (which also includes most of Simi Valley in Ventura County) for many years was considered “safe” Republican and is now listed as “likely” Republican due to demographic and voter registration trends.

In fact a recent survey by Public Policy Polling showed McKeon losing to a generic Democrat by 2 points. … In the neighboring Ventura County-based CD 26, sits first year Democrat incumbent Julia Brownley. Brownley benefitted from the Obama wave to narrowly beat state Senator Tony Strickland in 2012.

Strickland has been out raising money and has filed FEC paperwork stating he’s running once again in CD 26 against the vulnerable Brownley. This seat is one of the GOP’s best hopes for a pick-up in 2014.

However, there have been rumblings that McKeon and Strickland have cut a deal to circumvent the electoral process and crown Strickland the GOP standard bearer in 2014. The alleged plan is for McKeon to announce last minute that he is not running. Strickland would then switch races and announce for CD 25. This would obviously place other GOP candidates at a disadvantage...

Considering the amount of money Strickland has raised and his announced intentions, it seems far-fetched. However, Strickland is consumed with personal political ambition. He was elected in one of the most expensive state Senate campaigns in 2008, and six months later was running for State Controller. In 2011, he was raising money to defend his critical State Senate seat (A seat the GOP ended up losing because we no longer had an incumbent) and he then flipped to running for Congress when he felt he had a better shot at winning the newly minted CD 26.

If Strickland departs CD 26, allured by the seemingly easier path to his goal of being in Congress, who fills the vacuum to challenge Brownley? I’m sure GOP Assemblyman Jeff Gorell would feel compelled to run and that would leave the highly competitive AD 44 an open seat.

This domino effect would create a scenario of GOP candidates scrambling to garner the necessary resources in a short period of time to compete with the Democrats. These campaigns wouldn’t be races, but sprints. It would place the GOP at a terrible disadvantage. A possible result could be losses in both congressional districts as well as the state Assembly seat.

Rep. Buck McKeon, himself, ought to announce his intentions now.

If McKeon retires, Tony Strickland has every right to run in CD 25 if he wants to. But he should exercise some integrity and let the party faithful know his intentions now.

Unfortunately the one wearing the biggest grin in this scenario is freshman Congresswoman Julia Brownley. After all, Strickland has amassed north of $400,000 in his federal campaign committee-- and those funds represent the dreams and donations of loyal Republicans who believe it will be spent on Brownley’s retirement.

Our country and state are at the tipping point. If we want to save our country and state we have to save our party. I ask all those who care for our country to call on Rep. McKeon and Tony Strickland to announce their intentions so our party will be ready to compete in 2014.

I think the other person with a big grin is Lee Rogers, the Democrat preparing to beat McKeon-- or Strickland. Strickland is viewed as an opportunist and carpetbagger and isn't well-liked by anyone in CA-25 (except McKeon) and he would be the easiest Republican-- other than McKeon himself-- for Rogers to beat. In the last quarter Rogers-- with no help from the DCCC and with small, grassroots contributions-- beat McKeon's fundraising numbers. And McKeon got virtually no significant grassroots money; all his cash comes from corporate PACs with business before the House Armed Services Committee, a practice that should be outlawed. You can contribute to Rogers' efforts to win CA-25 here.

And, of course, CA-25 isn't the only Republican-held district GOP extremism and bigotry has put in jeopardy. As Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions explained a couple weeks ago, Republican hostility to the legitimate aspirations of Hispanic families have reshaped California politics in a manner that has made the Republican Party nearly irrelevant. This is what's happened in California since the GOP proposed a series of anti-immigrant laws in the 1990s:

1. The Latino share of the total California electorate has dramatically increased.

2. California Republicans embarked on an anti-immigrant agenda that alienated Latino voters and drove them into the open arms of the Democratic Party.

3. Republicans are unable to compete for California’s 55 Electoral College votes, which amounts to 20% of the total 270 necessary to win a presidential election.

As the Latino voter population grows across other states, and a rigorous debate unfolds about immigration reform, we take this opportunity to revisit lessons learned from California. How did California go from a Republican stronghold to a Democratic lock? The answer is clear-- anti-immigrant policy and a frustrated and mobilized Latino vote…

It is now well established in both the political science research community and real world campaign politics that the mid-1990s Pete Wilson era of California Republicanism was a historic turning point in the state’s politics. Prop. 187, the infamous anti-immigrant ballot measure, which was championed by then Governor Pete Wilson in his re-election bid, resulted in significant backlash and political mobilization among California Latino voters. Following Prop. 187 were additional anti-immigrant measures such as Prop. 209 and Prop. 227 that proposed to outlaw affirmative action and bilingual education. Since 1996 when Latinos first comprised more than 10% of the state electorate, Latino partisanship has grown to over 70% Democratic. In light of these dynamics, it is little wonder that California has become an easy win for the Democrats?

Take for example a comparison of California then and now.  In 1994 the GOP held 26 of 52 (50%) U.S. House seats in the California delegation. Today they hold just 15 of 53 (28%).  From 1948 until 1992 Republicans won California in 9 of 10 presidential elections.  From 1992 to 2012 Democrats have swept 6 of 6 presidential elections. [T]his was primarily due to the Latino vote.

Prop 187 and the Pete Wilson years had two effects that shifted the state dramatically to the Democrats. First, the number of Latino voters grew quickly in response to perceived attacks on the Latino community. In comparison to other states that did not experience the same anti-immigrant environment such as Texas or New York, the research clearly demonstrates that Latino voter registration in California increased must faster than anticipated by population growth alone. Second, during the mid-1990s extensive research documents a increase in Latino votes for the Democratic party in California that was sustained throughout the 2000s. Not only did more Latinos start voting, they started voting heavily against the Republican Party.

Today, the national Republican Party is facing the same crossroads the California GOP faced in 1994. However the national GOP has the benefit of hindsight-- being able to evaluate how the Prop 187 era anti-immigrant politics impacted the GOP’s viability in California. The short answer is that Prop 187 and Pete Wilson devastated Republican success.  Sixteen years after the historic 1994 election the Wilson/187 effect was long lasting in the Brown-Whitman gubernatorial election. In a September 2010 survey of California Latino voters Latino Decisions asked whether or not it was “concerning” that Pete Wilson was appointed campaign co-chair for Meg Whitman in 2010. Overall, 84% of Latinos in 2010 were somewhat or very concerned about Pete Wilson’s involvement. This should serve as a reminder to the national GOP that the statements and positions taken today could have long lasting effects on Latino voters if they are seen as negative and severe as the Wilson/187 policies back in 1994.

Latino Decisions analysis finds 44 GOP held House districts in which the Latino voting-age population exceeds the 2012 margin of victory for the Republican incumbent. Among these, 24 are classified as having a high level of Latino influence because the Latino voter population is large and growing and the 2012 congressional election was quite close. Within this list we identify 14 tier 1 districts that are the most likely to flip from red to blue due to a sizable Latino electorate and very close election results. For example Colorado 6 was decided by just 2 points in 2012 and is about 17% Latino. Florida 10 went Republican by just 3 percent and is more than 14% Latino. In California the 10th district is more than 35% Latino the GOP incumbent held on by just 5 points.

According to Latino Decisions polling in 2013 an overwhelming majority say they will blame the Republican Party if immigration reform does not pass. When read recent statements by Republicans Steve King or Jeff Sessions, over 70% of Latino voters say it makes them less favorable towards the Republican Party as a whole. Over 60% of Latino voters say they personally know an undocumented immigrant, and for one in three Latino voters they have an undocumented immigrant in their family. It is no wonder that the immigration issue has become so salient and so personal to a large portion of the Latino electorate.

Latino Decisions is furiously registering voters in these 10 congressional districts:

• CA-10 (Jeff Denham)
• CA-21 (David Valadao)
• CA-25 (Buck McKeon)
• CA-31 (Gary Miller)
• CO-06 (Mike Coffman)
• CO-03 (Scott Tipton)
• FL-10 (Daniel Webster)
• NV-03 (Joe Heck)
• NM-02 (Stevan Pearce)
• TX-14 (Randy Weber)

Grassroots Democrats Pushing Back Against Inside The Beltway Democratic Leadership

As a delegate to the Democratic Convention, Norman Solomon had high hopes for Barack Obama. Now he wonders if the emperor isn't kind of scantily clad. "We have to fight for our progressive principles," he tells his audiences, "or this country will continue to move rightward... I don't believe in trickle-down economics. I don't believe in trickle-down job creation. I'm an unreconstructed New Dealer. I believe we need massive federal jobs programs. What we've been getting instead out of Washington are very underfunded stimulus programs and a combination of tax breaks for businesses and relatively-- compared to need-- paltry job creation funds that have landed us in this mess... I think we need a sort of a paradigm shift that can only come from the bottom up... to say 'this country's not about Wall Street; it's about people who have a right to a job, a good, long term, secure job, a right to secure retirement. And, in fact, healthcare, education, housing, and full employment are all human rights. When we can bring those principles into electoral action and win elections on that basis, then we begin to shift the sort of circumference and radius of what we've been talking about in terms of what's possible."

Norman is running in a super blue district (the new 2nd) north of San Francisco, parts of the old 1st CD and parts of the old 6th CD, both of which were won by Obama with crushing margins, 66% in the 1st and 76% in the 6th. With Lynn Woolsey retiring, there must be close to a dozen Democrats running, many of whom are perfectly respectable liberals. But none are anything like Norman. His top competitor is Assemblyman Jared Huffman, a grasping corporate money chaser who has raked in cash from some of the worst and most corrupt entities in the state, including PG&E, Gallo, Chevron and Wal-Mart. Yes, Huffman's "a liberal." Strung out on corporate cash and support from the Beltway Establishment, Huffman is the perfect representative of the worst of the old politics. Unlike Huffman, Solomon has made it clear he will only accept campaign funds from actual people. His grassroots campaign is thriving-- without corporate bribes-- and without resorting to Mitt Romney's redefinition of corporations as "people too," the way Huffman has.

There will be some kind of "liberal" Democrat in this seat next year, but this is a district that can easily support a true fighting progressive with the kind of guts and savvy to stand up to Wall Street and stand up to the 1%. Jared Huffman isn't that candidate. He's just another garden variety opportunist looking for a cushy career advancement. Watch the whole interview above-- and you'll see what kind of a congressman-- what kind of a political leader-- CA-2 could send to Washington in Norman Solomon. If you'd like to help him, please contribute whatever you can afford here through ActBlue.

California Democrat Russ Warner Announces Another Bid For Congress

With everyone preoccupied with Arlen Specter's label switch, I imagined that the only big news out of California today would be the appropriately stiff sentence for former Republican Party crown prince, "America's Sheriff," Mike Carona. One of the most overtly crooked politicians in California history got a stern lecture, a $125,000 fine and five and a half years in prison, of which he'll have to serve a minimum of 4 years and seven months. But an announcement of far greater significance for California progressives just came down the transom.

One of Blue America's hardest working candidates from last year, Russ Warner, just announced what grassroots and progressive Democrats were hoping against hope he would do: Russ has decided to finish the job he started and he'll be running against David Dreier again. First a little background. Obama won the suburban L.A. area district 51-47%. Ironically, Russ-- while bringing Dreier's 2006 winning number (57%) down to the incumbent danger zone (53%)-- didn't win largely because of a massive Mormon turn out for the bigoted Prop 8 their church was pushing. I say "ironic," because few of those anti-gay Mormon voters understood that by pulling the lever for Dreier, they were voting for one of Washington's most notorious and hypocritical closet queens.

At the California Democratic Party Convention Saturday, Howard Dean presented Russ with the Ron Platt Courage Award on behalf of the Red to Blue Coalition and Russ told the participants he would run again next year. It's official now! And Russ is already out there swinging. "Don't be fooled," says Russ Warner. In announcing he would take on Dreier, who spent $2,919,351 last year told hold onto his seat (Russ spent $1,261,171), Russ reminded Democratic activists that "This is the same David Dreier who voted against the best interests of this district and stuck with House Republicans in an effort to block President Barack Obama's $787 billion economy recovery package in February. It's high time Dreier stop playing party politics and start looking out for the needs of the people he was
elected to represent."

The former chair of the House Rules Committee, and now ranking member, Dreier has routinely voted for every single special interest bill the banksters and crooked realtors have asked for. He's been a fanatic deregulation extremist. And, what a coincidence, he's taken $367,750 from the finance/insurance/real estate sector in "donations," far more than the average corrupt member of Congress. The banksters are delighted that they always get what they pay for from Dreier, who even voted against allowing bankruptcy judges to re-adjust mortgages on families being threatened with foreclosure, despite the fact that CA-26 is one of the three-dozen hardest hit districts in the country by the foreclosure blight. (It is estimated that 13,487 families have been kicked out of their houses in the district, something that has had a devastating impact on property values.) Dreier, who lives in DC and Kansas City doesn't have much contact with the district and knows nothing at all about the strains on area homeowners.

Anyway, please help me welcome Russ back into electoral politics with a donation to his campaign. He's going to need all the help he can get if he's going to finally retire Dreier. Volunteers are welcome and can sign up at his website.

MY INTERVIEW WITH "CANDIDATE X," RUSS WARNER, THE DEMOCRATS' BEST CHANCE IN YEARS TO RETIRE DAVID DREIER

This is going to make more sense if you read the article I posted yesterday called MEET THE DEMOCRATS' CANDIDATE X. I'll take it from there. The incumbent is the execrable David Dreier, another hypocritical, self-loathing Republican closet case, who has misrepresented California's 26th CD for 25 years. (It's a moderate suburban L.A. district not unlike the Northern Virginia districts that used to vote Republican but went overwhelmingly for Democrat Tim Kaine in the gubernatorial race there a couple months ago. It's usually thought of as the San Gabriel Valley, but it also extends into San Bernardino County and some of the better known communities are La Canada, La Crescenta, Flintridge, Rancho Cucamonga, Altadena, a bit of Pasadena, San Marino, Glendora, La Verne, Monrovia, Arcadia, Claremont, Upland... There is no primary and the challenger, yesterday's "Mr. X," is Russ Warner, a successful local entrepreneur.

I met Russ and one of his 3 sons, Greg, at a rally for Wes Clark on October 28 in Cheviot Hills. Greg, who's in the Army and had recently returned from Iraq, had urged his dad to run for Congress. I prefer to be able to look at someone in the eyes when I talk with them but I had trouble enough getting an interview with Warner to be too picky, so tonight I sat down and had a nice, relaxed, friendly conversation with him on the telephone.

I was half expecting a what I've been referring to on DWT as a Rahm Emanuel shill candidate; I thought I had it all figured out in advance. I didn't. Russ had his own point of view on issues-- some identical to mine, some very different from mine, all probably well-suited to the district he's lived in for the last 25 years. My best guess it that he'll be a moderate Democrat-- in the real sense of "moderate," not as a polite way of saying a "right-wing Democrat" like Jim Marshall, or Henry Cuellar or Ben Nelson.

On some of the tough issues, his reflexes were absolutely spot on. He's adamant that America needs universal health care and that the country is ready for it now. He speaks about it with conviction and passion and it's obviously a topic he's thought long and hard about. Most everything we talked about flowed through his life-experience as an entrepreneur, something I'm very comfortable with, having come from a similar background. His analysis of the state of the union finds grave fault with the greed, avarice and arrogance of Big Business. And, for Warner, salvation is the hard work, sweat and dedication of the enlightened entrepreneur and small businessperson. It could be a lot worse-- and for CA-26, it's pretty close to perfect.

One crucial issue for the race is going to be immigration. The loony and extremely xenophobic/racist Minutemen are strong in Southern California and some local right-wing drive-time radio show targeted Dreier in 2004 and hammered him mercilessly. Their motto is kind of "Anything But Dreier" because he supports Bush's corporatist immigration policies. (That wing-- as opposed to the neo-Nazi Tancredo wing-- of the GOP encourages a flood of immigration, illegal better than legal, in order to drive labor prices down for their corporate allies and to undermine union's bargaining power. The Republicans have always hated minimum wage laws, safety in the workplace laws, child labor laws, all the kind of stuff that differentiates free citizens with dignity from serfs and slaves-- the right-wing's ideal condition for the non-wealthy.) Anyway, the radio loons, "John & Ken," still hate Dreier, who fears them the way a 10 year old girl lost in a forest would feel a pack of hungry wolves. Dreier has tried to move a bit in their direction on the issue but they're not having any of his weasel-words and they never shut about how terrible and corporate he is. And he has some Minuteman type challenging him-- ineffectually-- in the GOP primary. Warner understands the immigration issue and his response is very reasonable: to crack down on the big businesses that encourage illegal immigration by hiring illegals.

His answer about equal protection for gays and lesbians was very matter-of-fact-- sort of like a moderate version of Paul Hackett's: we're all Americans and all entitled to equal protection under the law-- and he specifically brought up civil marriage. Funny how a happily married man, confident in his own skin, has no problems with gays while a closeted, self-loathing and petrified homosexual like David Dreier feels the need to victimize gay people every chance he gets as a legislator. Dreier's homosexuality, his hypocrisy in that area, and the scandal of his taxpayer-financed lover's inordinately large salary are issues Warner refuses to talk about-- even when prodded. He's a decent guy who is determined to take the high road.

My biggest specific problem with Warner was, probably predictably, Iraq. I think what drives Warner is his life's experience as an entrepreneur, a husband and a father and that these experiences are determinative of his positions. He's not an ideologue; he seems like a considerate and fair-minded problem-solver. The conclusions he's come to about Big Pharma's role in the deteriorating state of our medical system is a great example of how real life experience, not ideology, brought him to a common sense conclusion about the corrosive nature of Big Business in a democratic and middle class-oriented society. When it came to Iraq, however... his experiences are different from mine. When I put the question to him-- how do we get out-- he fumbled around a bit, perhaps still trying to get to the best solution to a problem that has too many grays. He started talking about troop rotations and getting Arab and Muslim and even NATO countries to send troops as we bring our boys home. I got a sinking feeling in my stomach.

I pointed out that other countries, even the ones we bribed initially, are withdrawing troops and that no one wants to send new troops in. He pointed out that that's because no one trusts Bush. I pointed out that he's running for Congress and that, in all likelihood, Bush will be around for his entire first term. In the end came what I was afraid was the inevitable answer: the way out of Iraq is to... elect Wes Clark president. Warner is a true believer and has tremendous faith in the general. I don't want to start another war with the Wes Clark supporters (and risk hundreds of pieces of spam, most of it either filthy, racist, homophobic or a combination, all over my blog again) but this illusion that history depends on a (military) strongman disturbed me-- big time. I respect Clark and I respect Warner's admiration and trust in him, but as right as Clark was about the Iraq war in the beginning (that it would be a terrible and costly blunder), he has been wrong ever since. Somewhat astonished that Warner seemed to be equating an end to the problems in Iraq with the election of Clark as president, I asked him if that was the only way out. He said the Democrats have a strong line-up of potential candidates who he trusted could solve the problem. He mentioned 3 others: Mark Warner, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

I think Russ Warner is a good challenger for David Dreier in the 26th CD. And a much better candidate than what I've come to expect from the DCCC. I think he has an excellent chance of winning and I think he'll be a decent congressman if he does-- far, far better than the inherently dishonest, conflicted mess we have in that seat now. Is he a DFA candidate? He seems to think so (although he doesn't even mention he's a Democrat on his website). I'm sure some DFA grassroots workers and donations would be welcome and useful. But this is a campaign that I think is one I'll be rooting for rather than participating in myself. The local DFA folks appreciate him and want to help and that doesn't really bother me if they have nothing better to do. (Francine Busby should be an incumbent by then. Progressive Californians in solidly Democratic districts should also consider helping Jerry McNerney to topple Richard Pombo and Charlie Brown to rid California of John Doolittle.) Still, on the very day-- today-- that DFA has endorsed 4 proud progressives, Francine Busby, Christine Cegelis, Mary Jo Kilroy and Lois Murphy, for Congress, I think it would be too much of a stretch for me to ask that organization to do likewise for Warner. Instead I'm calling my pals Bob, Mary and Grace in San Marino and asking them to give Warner a hand.