News Feeds

At around 1pm Eastern time, Obama will give the only public speech from his European tour. Live from Berlin...

Any crowd estimates?

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

“Comeuppance” was the term my grandmother used to describe someone getting their just deserts for a life of wrong doing. The latest Field Poll results suggest it will be the fate of Republican candidates this Fall.

President Bush has just surpassed Richard Nixon’s record low esteem rating for politicians. And now the Field Poll shows a 20 point disparity in voter evaluation of the two political parties – in favor of the Democrats.

Similar surveys in 2002 and 2004 predicted the state’s division of the vote between the two parties reasonably accurately. It could mean that previously “red” geography in California turns “blue” this Fall.

As our recent June Primary evidences again, voter turnout is not a product of low visibility, down ticket contests. In the 50 years since the American Voter was published, behavioral studies of voting behavior have shown the same pattern: voters respond to close national elections where the perceived differences between the candidates are clear and where they think they have some personal stake in the outcome.

Iraq and the economy and George Bush and the Republican ‘brand’ have, to date,defined the G.O.P. standard bearer for Californians. His comparatively liberal position on immigration reduces the salience of his election to conservatives. Will the effort to salvage traditional notions of marriage be enough to overcome these liabilities? Or will Republican registrants – faced with a lackluster and obviously losing candidate and a party headed by a president they don’t like either – simply stay home in droves as they did in 1976.

California replaced Ronald Reagan with Jerry Brown and gave Democrats a 2/3 majority in both Houses of the Legislature.

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker’s Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years. He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960’s and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker. He now manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.

In the New York Times, John McCain's home state of Arizona is not in his safe column.

The number of independent voters in Arizona has risen 12 percent since 2004, and those voters have helped send a Democrat to the governor’s mansion and given the party four of the state’s eight Congressional seats — including two in 2006, one in a historically Republican district.

At the same time, Arizona Democrats, like many of their counterparts around the country, have outpaced Republicans in voter registration, adding almost 20,000 voters to the rolls since March, compared with the Republican majority’s 8,600 new voters. The second-term Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, remains wildly popular.

And Democrats are not going to cede the state to McCain, either:

While chatting with reporters on his press plane this week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), noting that many of the televisions at army bases in Iraq and Afghanistan were tuned to Fox News, jokingly asked, “Is this the commander in chief’s choice?” Missing the joke, the Fox and Friends denounced Obama’s “implication” that the Bush administration was “brainwashing” the troops.

At the same time, the Fox hosts insisted that it made perfect sense that soldiers overseas would prefer Fox News because “they’re getting a fair and balanced approach” to the war. Guest Rudy Giuliani declared that if Obama “has any understanding of how American troops think,” he’d know they feel that they “get a better shake on Fox” than the other “anti-military” networks:

GIULIANI: I mean, if he has any understanding of how American troops think, it would be natural that a large percentage of them would watch Fox. There’s the sense that Fox covers the war in Iraq and the situation in Iraq in a more balanced way. … But if you talk to enough of the troops there or their offices, and not 100% but you are going to see a very large percentage of them believe they get a better shake on Fox than some of the other networks some of which I think they believe is anti-military.

Watch a compilation of Fox and Friends’ coverage of the story this morning:

The Fox anchors repeatedly declared that the military offers “all cable channels.” However, when Brian Kilmeade checked with a source in Gen. Petraeus’ office, he reported that the military televisions offer “AFN [American Forces Network] news, which cycles through the various news broadcasts, and you can also get CNN International, and then we have Fox.” In other words, Fox is the only stateside American network accessible around the clock.

Host Steve Doocy comically asserted, “The best coverage of the war was on Fox.” A Project for Excellence in Journalism report in March found that Fox spent the least time discussing the Iraq War in 2007 of all three cable networks, devoting just 10 percent of airtime to the subject. Similarly, in 2006 Fox spent the least time on the war — giving it hardly any more coverage than it gave to Anna Nicole Smith.

A 2003 study by the Program on International Policy found that 60 percent of Fox viewers erroneously believed at least one of the following misperceptions: that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked, that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, or that the world favored the U.S. invasion.

New numbers coming in:

DCCC      10.1     54.7
NRCC       6.1      8.5

DSCC      10.8     46.3
NRSC       6.0     24.6

DNC       22.5     20.3
RNC       27.0     67.0

Obama     52.0     71.7
McCain    22.2     26.8

With Obama now firmly in charge of the DNC, and directing his big-dollar donors in its direction, the DNC is finally competitive with the RNC. Combined, the Obama/DNC combo is now near parity with the McCain/RNC pairing. That didn't take long to close the gap. This month, the GOP gets left in the dust, and given that their current heavy spending isn't making much of a difference, that truly is a whiff of desperation you're smelling from the McCain camp.

Meanwhile, our two party committees are crushing their counterparts. The NRCC, in particular, is in woeful straits, and won't be in any position to provide its members or candidates any help whatsoever. Remember -- this is the month that included their big annual Bush fundraiser. They ain't got any more of those on tap.

The NRSC on the other hand has got enough money to play some respectable defense, though little more. The NRCC can't even offer that. But across the board, Democrats will be on the attack this November, with little Republicans can do except fill up some sandbags and hope the rising waters don't crest.

By Frank D. Russo

The California Field Poll released results today that shows the state’s likely voters overwhelmingly favoring the Democrats over Republicans—by margins even larger than the ten and half percentage advantage they have in voter registration. Field also recorded the largest advantage—48% to 28% in the generic vote Californians indicate they would cast for Congress were the election to be held today.

There are no two ways around these results. California Democrats like their party better than Republicans like theirs. Non-partisan/others also have a much higher opinion of the Democratic Party.

To start off with, California Democrats have the highest advantage in voter registration they have ever had in California—some 1.8 million more Democrats than Republicans. Democratic registration clocks in at 43.7% compared with 32.5% for Republicans. The remaining 23.8% of Californians are not registered with either the Democrats or the Republicans and are classified as “decline-to-state/others.”

Field’s poll numbers show that when asked: “Generally speaking, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of (the Democratic party) (the Republican party)?” that likely voters gave a favorable response to the Democratic Party by a 54% to 42% level—with only 4% having no opinion. When asked about the Republican Party, the favorability rating was only 31% with unfavorable at 63% and 6% with no opinion.

Broken down, Field’s numbers show Democrats have a favorable view of their party by a much larger 79% to 16% margin than Republicans have of their own party at 59% to 34%. This does not bode well for a party that has a smaller registration base to begin with.

With the important segment of voters who are not aligned with either party, the Democrats are seen favorably 50% to 48% and Republicans are seen unfavorably by a margin of 74% to 24%.

Field next asked: “In the November election for House of Representatives in your district, do you plan to vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate? (IF UNCERTAIN, PROBE:) Well, which party’s candidate do you lean towards at this time?” Here, the response is that 48% would vote for the Democratic candidate and 28% for the Republican candidate for Congress with 24% saying they have no opinion or would vote for another candidate. That is a 20 point margin in the generic vote for Congress.

Dan Froomkin reports that the latest list of White House staffers and their respective salaries has been released. Among the highest-paid White House staffers: Press Secretary Dana Perino, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Counsel Fred Fielding, and Counselor Ed Gillespie. Froomkin highlights some interesting bits from the disclosure:

– After four years of stagnating at $30,000, the bottom of the payscale was finally raised this year to $33,400.

– There are fully 25 lawyers in the White House counsel’s office.

– Staci A. Wheeler, the White House’s director of fact checking, is — at $60,000 — either being paid way too little or way too much, depending on how you want to look at it.

Senator Barack Obama will deliver a speech in Berlin, Germany at the Siegessäule, or the Victory Column, in Tiergarten Park at 1pm Eastern.

In the meantime, check out these photos from Senator Obama's arrival in Berlin:

Via TPM, John McCain surrogate Nancy Pfotenhauer:

"Barack Obama and his supporters can try to litigate what came first or what was crucial, but that's really an attempt to undermine the significance and the impact of the American troops and their sacrifice and their effort."

How fucking insulting to our troops, that getting history straight about how and why they're fighting can undercut their efforts. As if they're infantile hot-house flowers that wilt in the bright light of fact. Ugh.

Last week, we learned that Senate Majority Leader Reid would be collecting various bills "held" by Tom Coburn and combining them into one package - forcing Senate Republicans to either vote with the needs of their constituents on good legislation...or sacrifice themselves out of loyalty to one colleague's obstructionism.

And since many of the bills were bipartisan, quite a few Republican Senators will find themselves in the awkward position of either voting for the legislation they introduced, or selling out their constituencies to play politics and vote with Coburn.

Here, in no particular order, is a list of such Senators, and the legislation they partnered on:

Senator Thad Cochran - introduced - Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act (S. 999/HR 477)

Sen. Christopher S. Bond - introduced - Vision Care for Kids Act (HR 507/S. 1117)

Sen. Sam Brownback- introduced- Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act (S. 1810/HR 3112)

Sen Domenici, Pete V - introduced - Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 2304/HR 3992)

Sen Vitter, David - introduced - Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography (S. 2869/HR 4136)

Sen Lugar, Richard G. - introduced - Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act (HR 1084/S. 613)

Sen Coleman, Norm - introduced - Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act (HR 1678/S. 840)

Sen Stevens, Ted - introduced - Ocean Exploration, Mapping & Research (HR 1834/HR 2400/S. 39)

Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - introduced - Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act (S. 950/HR 2342)

Sen Voinovich, George V. - introduced - Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 (S. 496)

Coburn blocked every one of those bills - and every one of them will be in Reid's package next week.

Republicans in the Senate played politics with their power as long as they could. But now they're very, very unpopular, and their party's brand is in the gutter. Putting politics over substance by standing with Coburn may have been possible for this bunch even a year ago.

But now? Just yesterday Chuck Schumer said for the first time that achieving a 60-seat majority this cycle will be "difficult...but its not out of the question." Republicans are out of gas. Next week, we'll find out if they realize it.

Update [2008-7-24 12:1:11 by Josh Orton]: Senate whip Dick Durbin on the package:

"If you want to oppose this package, you're opposing a lot of things, including things that most Americans believe overwhelmingly should be part of our law — to protect against child pornography, to deal with the drug problem in our country, to try to find runaway children, to prosecute those who are guilty of civil rights crimes," Durbin said.

...

"If you want to cast your vote against it, I'm sure there will be many people at home with a lot of questions," he said.

Yesterday evening, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denied that he was wrong in claiming the “surge” policy in Iraq “began the Anbar Awakening.” Pressed by a reporter, McCain argued that the “surge” actually began before more troops were added to Iraq:

McCAIN: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy. And its made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Col. McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. […]

Q: So when you say ’surge’ then, you’re not referring to just the one that President Bush initiated. You’re saying it goes back several months before that?

McCAIN: Yes.

Watch it:

But McCain has previously admitted that the surge only entailed the increase in troop levels. “We have drawn down to pre-surge levels,” he said in May. “Was he saying ‘We are drawing back down to where we were before Colonel McFarland started using counterinsurgency tactics in Anbar as part of the Anbar Awakening.’ No, that is completely and patently absurd,” Ilan Goldenberg writes.

Ad Age:

It's official. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal's Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads.

The last time a presidential campaign bought a national ad was 1996, with a single minute-long ad by Bob Dole. In short, in today's micro-segmented world, where you can geo-target your ads to swing areas of swing states, as well, as use cable to further refine those ads to hyper-specific demographics, this kind of buy would seem to be a thing of the past.

But for at least the duration of the Olympics, the whole nation will be exposed to the Obama campaign.

By David Dayen
d-day

Greetings and welcome to the latest installment of the California House races roundup. We're just around 100 days to go until the election, and things are starting to take focus. There are about a half-dozen seats where Democratic challengers have an outside shot at dumping the incumbent, and another six on the watch list in case something spectacular occurs. One thing to note is that the Cook numbers are tied to the 2004 election, and given the demographic changes and cratering of the Republican brand I think they mean significantly less now - it'll be interesting to see how all these districts change in November.

We have plenty of new information to judge these races, including 2nd quarter fundraising reports, national ratings from Charlie Cook and Swing State Project, additional DCCC targets, and the appearance of many challengers at Netroots Nation. So this list is really about who I think has the best chance to retain or take over a seat, not necessarily who should (though that may come through in the writing). Here are some helpful bits of information that I used to help judge.

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)
Voter registration by Congressional district
Swing State Project fundraising roundup

On to the report...

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney. Challenger: Dean Andal. Cook number: R+3. % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%. DCCC defended. This remains the only opportunity for Republicans in the state, and it is starting to slip away. Dean Andal is proving to be incredibly weak at fundraising, having raised under $200,000 for FOUR STRAIGHT QUARTERS. He's not going to be able to get up on TV, and his opponent has not only outraised him but will get about a million dollars in ad help from the DCCC. Freedom's Watch threw in a few anti-McNerney robocalls, but that's really no match for the political muscle of the D-Trip. Plus, there's a brewing Andal scandal over his participation in passing privileged information and securing developer contracts for a San Joaquin Delta College contractor. As for McNerney, his vote for the FISA bill has caused outcry in the district, and national groups like Blue America won't be lending a hand. He has changed his position on medical marijuana in response to constituents, a symbolic piece of support with activists. But I think he's largely on his own in this race.

McNerney: raised $416K in the second quarter, $1.37m cash on hand
Andal: raised $174K Q2, $663K CoH

REPUBLICAN SEATS

By Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog's California Notes

Governor Schwarzenegger is using the state’s employees as lowly pawns in his attempt to force a budget agreement. Had he been interested in an on time budget, Schwarzenegger would have submitted one of his own that the legislature could pass, instead of the joke budget he did propose. He also would be working much harder to get his own party’s legislators to agree to a budget. He did neither, and now wants to push legislators to a budget agreement by going after a constituency that has enormous political influence.

State employees didn’t create the current budget mess. Yet, it is state employees that are being forced to, as State Controller John Chiang puts it, “involuntarily loan the State cash by foregoing their hard-earned paychecks.”

Chiang’s full statement is below.

“Forcing public servants to involuntarily loan the State cash by foregoing their hard-earned paychecks puts an untenable burden on our teachers, health care workers and those who provide critical public services. That is just wrong.

“Requiring a cut in pay for public employees – especially as they, like many other Californians, struggle with their mortgages and higher gas and food prices – will not only cause significant harm to those families, but also irreparably impact our economy by further eroding consumer spending.

“I have made it crystal clear that we have, and will continue to have, sufficient cash to make all payments, including state payroll, through September. Cutting workers’ salaries will do nothing meaningful to improve our cash position or help us make our priority payments.

“This is a cynical attempt by a governor who has spent the past few weeks going up and down the state criticizing others for political posturing. Such an executive order is unnecessary and nothing more than a poorly-devised strategy to put pressure on the Legislature to enact a budget.

“As the Supreme Court has never addressed the legality of withholding full salaries versus paying minimum wage, the governor’s proposed executive order would only invite more extensive and expensive litigation. Worse, should the courts find that withholding full pay is illegal, the State will be liable for treble damages.

“I will urge the Governor to rethink his proposal and work with us to ensure we manage our state finances in a responsible, realistic and honest manner.”

A spokesperson for Chiang said the Controller would ignore the governor’s order, likely forcing a court battle.

Last night on Fox, Hannity & Colmes co-host Alan Colmes noted that CBS News chose not to air a portion of its interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in which McCain falsely claimed that President Bush’s “surge” policy in Iraq “began the Anbar Awakening.”

But former Bush aide turned Fox pundit Karl Rove would have none of it. Discussing the issue with Colmes, Rove tried to shift the subject to something he’s more comfortable with — attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) — and pleaded, “Let’s not get into this”:

ROVE: Well, Alan, first of all, let’s not get into sort of nit-nat mistakes. After all, Barack Obama said we need more Arabic translators in Afghanistan. They don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan. […]

COLMES: What about his time line being wrong on the Anbar awakening?

ROVE: Look, let’s not get into this.

After more pressing from Colmes, Rove finally agreed, “I’d be happy to respond if you like. Would you like me to respond?” Rove finally told Colmes, “you’re right” and admitted that McCain “had his timing wrong.” But again, Rove insisted: “But don’t make a big deal of it.” Watch it:

It seems even master spin-meister Karl Rove can’t explain away McCain’s blatant misunderstanding of history.

Responding to criticism for their unprofessional and unethical editing of a Katie Couric interview with John McCain, CBS News Senior Vice President Paul Friedman said:

The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying.

Clearly, Mr. Friedman is either stupid or a liar. Roll the tape:

Perhaps Mr. Friedman can explain how replacing McCain's incorrect claim about when the "Anbar Awakening" began and his mocking of Obama for not knowing this "matter of history," with a contemptible attack on Obama's patriotism didn't distort what McCain said.

At the Netroots Nation conference last week down in Austin, I had the chance to catch up with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a Democratic Senate candidate in the state of Alaska and a key member of the MyDD Road to 60 Act Blue page.

You should be able to listen to the audio of the interview below in the not too distant future (apparently it's still formatting), but for now please do read the rush transcript of the interview in which Begich lays out a number of the themes of his campaign and presents a strong case as to why members of the MyDD community, and the netroots more broadly, should be supporting his campaign.

powered by ODEO

Jonathan Singer: In 2004 Tony Knowles was able to get 45, 46 percent of the vote. You're consistently polling ahead, but kind of in the mid- to high-40s. How do you get from the mid- to high-40s to the plurality that takes home the day?

Mark Begich: I think that there's a couple things. First, the dynamics between '04 and now are way different in Alaska, and there's a couple elements, first the campaign dynamics and then as means of candidates there's a different dynamic.

First, the campaign dynamics. In '04 our delegation was in the majority. Senator Stevens was the Appropriations chair. Lisa Murkowski had two years already there. She was a woman candidate, which cut right into Tony's base. The other piece was the in the last two weeks Ted Stevens came out with an ad for Lisa Murkowski and said, "If you abandon us, Alaska will lose out. You can't break the team up. We're there, we're bringing back the bacon." Those were the days when people loved bacon and they also had no problems with the delegation in the sense of some of the issues they're dealing with today.

The other thing is Bush was still popular back then, not like he is today, so it was a very red state. And the other piece was there was a third candidate, independent candidate, that kind of appeared out of nowhere. Actually dressed very similar to Tony Knowles, talked like Tony Knowles. Showed up, spent about $175,000, $200,000 towards the end of the campaign. When the campaign was over he vanished. And he picked up 3 ½, 4 percent of the vote, built it right out of the back, I believe, of Tony Knowles.

This cycle it's different - the campaign, all it's dynamics. The delegation is no longer in the majority on either side. Stevens has lost his powerful position. Earmarks are in trouble all across this country. His ability to bring back stuff is harder. It's four years later. The President is at the lowest ratings ever. The dynamics of the country have switched, too, and Alaska has switched.

And the independent candidate who's in this time is a right to lifer, Buchanan delegate, and loves to brag about it. We always put our thumb up and say, "keep going." So it's a different dynamic than what played last time.

Singer: And in the view of some on the right, Stevens is conservative on life but not 10,000 percent conservative?

Begich: Right, right. And this guy can peel right off his back. And because he comes from an area called Nakiski, which is a very conservative area which Republicans treat as a guarantee - here's you're delivery of the votes, not a lot, but it's a delivery - this guy is from there and he is a proud hard right to right. So he will not take one vote from me where Tony had that problem with that other candidate.

The other thing that's different, Stevens and Don Young are both under a cloud of investigation and other activities. That's all swirling around. Stevens popularity back then was 70 percent positive, 12 percent negative, so he was very popular. Today, I don't know what the latest...

Matt Browner-Hamlin (staffer): His negatives were in the 60s. That's the furthest we've seen it.

Begich: Yeah, they were deep. His reelect number when we did a poll three months ago was 31 percent. He's never been in that position.

Singer: Has he had to run a race?

Begich: No, he's never had to run a race. The grassroots campaign that we do, that door-to-door, that very strong kind of people campaign is just nothing he's used to. We got in about three and a half months ago, and we also got in late for a variety of reasons. One, I wanted to wait to make the decision personally and family-wise. Once we made the decision, I decided we were going to get in the race late and do a sprint - that's the kind of race I like. That's how I won the mayor's race in '03, had a nine-week campaign, went against an incumbent - no incumbent had lost in the history of the city - and we beat him in a three-way race with a plurality of 45 percent plus .03, and .03, which was 18 votes, prevented a runoff. And we were outspent 4-to-1.

So we have run those kind of races before, very sprint oriented. This race is the same thing. This quarter, which just reported out two days ago, we actually outraised Ted Stevens in the quarter. He has outraised us totally. He has raised about $4 million, we've raised about $1.3. He's burned off probably 75 percent of it. He has about 1.5 or so in the bank, but he's spent off a lot of his money already. But just this last quarter, to be able to outraise him and the most important part that I think is this quarter we had 4,100 donors to the campaign, individual people. He had 900. That just shows a different kind of base we're working from that didn't really exist in '04. The style of campaign is very different.

Also, as mayor of Anchorage, Anchorage is 43 percent of the state's population.

Singer: And media market wise?

Begich: 70 percent. And it's the funniest thing. I can go to a village up north before we started running our ads and they will recognize me, and once I start talking it connects, "Oh, he's the mayor of Anchorage." So the media market, when we do press, we use a lot of free press, it gets around fairly quickly.

Singer: And do people remember your father as well, have positive memories?

Begich: Yeah. I still get things from people that they have held on for 35 years, they give me as a kind of memento. People see the name in a variety of ways. First my father, and then my two brothers do a lot of work with tribal rights and Alaska Native issues throughout the state. And so they have been engaged in a variety of ways.

And then as the mayor of Anchorage, it is also the largest Alaska Native village, so we by 2012 or 2015, will have 50 percent of Alaska Natives living in Anchorage. So it's very connected to the rest of the state. What I've tried to do as mayor is reconnect it, because the last mayors didn't do that. By doing that it has really filtered out to a lot of the villages. In Alaska politics, you have the governor, then the mayor of Anchorage - that's the power structure - because the mayor of Anchorage, it's a home-rule city, line-item veto, very powerful position, but because it is the economic engine, the transportation component of the state, it has a variety of areas that it kind of manages for the state. When you work on certain things, it becomes statewide. When I work on energy issues, statewide impact. When I advocate for education funding, statewide impact. So that has really played very well. It's great public policy, getting a lot of things done. But also people recognize it across the state.

Singer: Now you talked about going door-to-door. I know that several thousand - I'm assuming it's a record by many times over - several thousand people caucused.

Begich: 4,500 in Anchorage alone.

Singer: And these are people whose names are presumably on the Democratic rolls. There's also talk in the Anchorage papers of the possibility of Obama coming and campaigning in the state. How do you think, not to diminish John Kerry's performance in 2004 nationwide, but he got 36 percent. How do you think the energy on the presidential level and him running ads, things of that nature, will impact your race?

Begich: It absolutely impacts the race. It's kind of interesting. We haven't figured out why this dynamic is the way it is, and I think as time develops we'll have a better understanding, but we do well in the urban areas, Obama does well in the rural areas, which is great. Two sides. Because as we run consistently 5 to 7 points ahead of Obama total, and more in some cases, but the positive is we play off of each other very well. He will, by his strategy in Alaska of registering new voters and getting new people to the table, more than likely 75 percent of those folks will be our voters. Alaska is kind of an oddball thing. You think if they vote Obama they'll vote Begich. It's not necessarily the case. But at the end of the day, we'll get a bulk of those.

For us, our strategy, obviously, is to get our voters to the table. We get about 26, 27 percent of our base from Republicans. So as we bring people, and if they're voting for me the opportunity is they might end up voting for him. So it's kind of an interesting mix. So it plays very well. Also because we're both peers in age, we both have young families, we're both running against individuals who have been around a long time, and people see a future, and they see the next 20, 30 years on the ballot. And I think that's a powerful tool in an election.

So we love the fact that he's running ads, we like the fact that he has a crew up there of 30, 40 people working. That's fantastic for us. And on the reverse, we're going to have an equal size to compliment that. That's a big difference than '04. In '04, you had President Bush running against Kerry, and Kerry did not do well and had a lot of negatives in the sense of some people's minds up in Alaska. Obama, you don't hear like personal, "I can't vote for him because X, Y, Z." They just some of them don't like his policy. That's different than the personal kind of grinding voter that shows up - it can be a blizzard and they can show up just to vote no because they're angry. That's not what you have with Obama voters who are anti-Obama voters. They are voters because they're voting for McCain.

Or they're voting for the third party candidate, which I wouldn't doubt that Bob Barr would get a nice chunk of votes because he is more Alaskan than McCain from the Republican viewpoint. Barr wants to drill in ANWR, Barr is an NRA board member or former board member, he doesn't think climate change is reality. He's as Republican as the Republican Alaskans get. And that's really their guy.

So that's a different mix. There's not a passion for McCain, but there's a passion for Obama.

Singer: So talk about kind of the broader path to victory. It's been since 1974 since a Democrat has won a federal race in the state, and that was a unique year. It's been since your father before that to win a federal race in the state. And Alaska, I'd imagine, is a different place than it was 30, 35 years ago.

Begich: 10 years ago.

Singer: So this is a new game. You're blazing a new path.

Begich: That's all I've done in my life. I've never had easy races. In '88, when I ran for the Anchorage Assembly, I was 26 years old, and people told me to kind of sit on down and not worry about the life, go do something else. And I didn't like the way the establishment was working so I ran, won, had a ragtag team of folks and we won. I won the mayor's race, the same situation. I literally had no money 9 weeks before that campaign when I got in. Not a dime, and no one yet, except about a dozen people. Then it just did what I like, which is the campaigns - and I've always believed this - the person running is important. But what's really important about a campaign is it needs to be for a purpose and a cause. And people galvanize behind that. That's what's important.

So I think this is a different time. The state has changed from where it was 10 years ago. In Anchorage alone we have over 90 different languages spoken in our school district. A very diverse community. I couldn't say that 10 years ago, I couldn't say that 20 years ago, I couldn't say that 30 years ago. It's so much different.

And the situation of Alaska has shifted. It used to be, "Well, what's the federal government doing? What's the delegation bringing back to us this week or that month?" But now energy costs are killing people. The fishing fleets, a portion of them will not go out fishing because they can't afford fuel. We have rural communities collapsing because they can't heat their homes. We have education costs, healthcare costs, all these things now are kind of compiling into one pile of a mess. That has never been the case in Alaska.

And I think the difference is, and I don't mean to toot my horn too much, they get a credible candidate, a candidate that's about results who's kind of a mixed bag. You know I'm an NRA member, I'm a second amendment rights believer, but I believe in the whole constitution - I made a statement a couple weeks ago on FISA, where the Republicans have peeled away little bits and pieces of the constitution to basically fit their desire or their agenda.

This is where Stevens and I differ. In Alaska, in our constitution, we have the strongest part of the constitution that talks about individual rights, privacy rights. One of the strongest in the country. He has just been wrong on these issues.

So we have this kind of libertarian streak that comes down us, kind of let like the way we want to live. But at the same time we recognize our place in the sense of how to help the country move forward. It's much different than the politics of the last cycle. It really has changed.

Singer: You talked about in one of your ads, it's very powerful to an outsider and even more to people who kind of have the history, of the impact that your father's career and his unfortunate disappearance and death had upon you, how that's driven you to where you are today?

Begich: Sure. Oddly enough, put yourself in my perspective. I was 10 years old, and my father was taken away from me by the job he was doing, which was politics. And my mother had to raise, at 34 years old, six kids.  So kind of put that in perspective. You don't really see that really today. That's a different model than it is today. Four of them boys, which was even worse, to add to the equation.

So I actually moved to business. My first business license was at 14. I opened up the first teenage nightclub in Anchorage at 16. I owned real estate. I've been in the vending business, restaurant business, printing business. I've been in a lot of different businesses. But each time I've done that, one of the things, as time progressed, I learned from other people more about my dad's history and things because at 10 I didn't know a lot about what he had done. But also through my mom's (as I call) survival of six kids and raising, what I did know that as a member of a community you need to give back. And it could be through your church, it could be through a non-profit, it could be through political life. I've done a variety of ways.

I've just found myself honestly by default ending up in politics. Got mad in '88, as I said, about a guy who wasn't doing his job, I thought. When I ran for mayor, I got in there because I actually asked the two main guys who were running what they were going to do, what was the future, and all they thought about was the next election. So I said I'll talk about the next 20 and 30 years. What are you going to do so at the end of the day, 20 years, 30 years from now, we have a more stable, sustainable community. And they couldn't answer that.

I think a lot of that comes indirectly from my father. He was only there up to my age of 10. And my mother, and that is the whole public service, what it really is. Public service isn't really where I make my living. I make my living in real estate and other ventures. My wife has four stores that she operates and owns. My view is you serve for what it is: and that is public service. So I think that was instilled.

And I get things all the time from people. I mean I got one, this great speech he did in 1971 to the Anchorage Press Club. A woman came and gave it to me. And when you read the speech - Vietnam War, budgets that are going out of control, healthcare costs - all the things we could just substitute the dates, and it is what it is today. But what's so unique is that it's a speech that my dad gave, and I actually used it at the Alaska state convention, pieces of it, because what he talked about was some pieces about what's important about public service, ethics, openness, transparency, do what the people are asking for, not what the groups behind closed doors are. It's very... literally, it's like a time warp. It's like we went back to the future.

[Laughter]

It's kind of an interesting thing. So it absolutely had impact, indirectly and directly. And via other people. I love when I do presentations, I like telling stories because I hear so many stories. And that really helps you understand what's going on.

I look back at the Alaska Native Land Claims Act, which shaped the state for what it is today. My dad did it in two years as a freshman. And people always say, seniority this, seniority that. Seniority doesn't mean anything if you don't have relationships and good ideas. That's what it's all about. And somehow in 435 people on the U.S. House side and he comes in from Alaska and in two years passes a landmark piece of legislation that hadn't been done in decades. I think it's because his style was engaging, not confrontational in the sense of a negative personal confrontation - it was based on the issues and you argue the issues but you could still go have a beer with someone you disagreed with. That doesn't exist in Washington, DC today. Now it's how hard do you pound the other guy into the ground personally, and then, oh yeah, there's some issue he's working on. I think that's very dangerous for us. And that's, I honestly think, why we are where we are.

Singer: Last question. Our site has done a little bit of fundraising for you, I think a few dozen people have given several hundred dollars. I know across the netroots there has been a lot of fundraising. Whether it's that or other issues, if there's one message that you'd like to send to the netroots broadly today, what would that be?

Begich: I'll give them two. The first one is, what folks who help and support and are interested in this campaign are going to know that I'm a candidate that's going to be... you get what you get with me. I mean I'm straight forward, I'm out there. But I understand where we need to be in the next 20 and 30 years, that where we are today, it's a mess and we have to make some tough decisions, but it's going to be fully engaging with everybody. No special group here, special group there.

I think the netroots group is a great access point. I'm one of the few, actually I think I'm the only politician in Anchorage that blogs literally on webpages of other people, even before I was campaigning. I use technology to the highest level because it's a great way to communicate. I mean I'll video call my six year old son tonight to have a conversation with him.

And I think what folks engaged in the netroots I hope realize is that I'm a candidate who touches a lot of their issues and understands them and not afraid to step out there.

The other piece is it is the netroots and the small donors that are making a big difference in our campaign. 75 percent of our donations are under $100.

Singer: And you're disclosing everying?

Begich: Yeah, we disclose everything. I not only disclose every donation, I disclose all my disclosure statements back to 1988 for every office I've ever filed for where the Senate destroys them after every six years. And I don't use the ranges. I put down exactly how much I make and I added how much my wife makes, which I'm not required to do. And I think a lot of times these Senators have their spouses and they're lobbyists, and they never have to disclose anything, which I think is outrageous. I think it's unbelievable that they get away with that. So I have challenged Ted Stevens, and he of course has said to me, I'm not running against you. And then he has the Republican committee pounding me into the ground. So I'm not sure what the real story is there

But I think the single message is that I'm a candidate that's as grassroots as it gets, very open and honest, and going to be very in tune with what's going on, even to the point sometimes when I get banned from blogging because I do midnight blogging when I shouldn't be.

[Laughter]

That is true. They have controlled me.

[Laughter]

But it's hard.

Singer: I hear you, I hear you. Well, thank you so much.

Begich: Thank you, absolutely.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Tags: AK-Sen, Senate 2008, Alaska, Interview, Road to 60 (all tags)

The latest Field Poll shows that 54 percent of California voters hold a positive image of the Democratic party, while just 31 percent have a favorable view of the Republican party. In addition, likely voters were asked their pre-election party preferences for Congress in the fall election. That measure finds Democrats with a twenty-point advantage over the GOP, 48 percent to 28 percent.

The Republican Party in California is a dead letter, and there's only one time a year they matter at all - when they hijack the budget negotiations.  They will continue to do so as long as they are not made to pay at the ballot box.

But in order for that to occur, Democrats must show some leadership.  And Speaker Bass' statement, which obviously hinted at some kabuki dance among the leadership and the Governor, using the livelihoods of 200,000 state workers as a prop, was completely unhelpful.  The positive image that Californians have of Democrats is based on national trends.  If the state Democrats undermine it through giving up on the budget and succumbing to yet another compromise based mostly on deep cuts, without rectifying the overall structural revenue deficit, that image will disappear.  Because the impact will be extremely visible locally.  The Governor has failed working families time and again, and this latest outrage to threaten state workers, who never caused this crisis, to bear the full brunt of the pain, is a teachable moment.  Whether it's Controller Chiang and Treasurer Lockyer simply saying "no" or the leadership hammering Schwarzenegger for this cruel proposal, some Democrat has to show leadership in this vacuum, or otherwise there will be no refracted glory in the Golden State from an expected Democratic victory in November.

And even this threat should be a part of every TV ad, radio spot and direct mail piece for every Assembly and Senate candidate with a shot at flipping a seat.

The fundamentals of our economy are strong, says John McCain. Reuters, however, has a different story:

Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 406,000 in the week ended July 19, from a revised 372,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the highest reading since late March.

So stop your whining.

In 1997, conservative anti-tax activist Grover Norquist initiated the Reagan Legacy Project, which sought to “name something — a stadium, a stretch of turnpike, anything — after Reagan in every state in the union.” Another proposal favored by the group is to have “Reagan’s image replace that of Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.” Speaking to the Washington Examiner yesterday, Norquist suggested that the time is right to push that project again. “It sounds like a good time to re-start the conversation about getting Reagan on the $10 bill,” said Norquist. “I don’t know why the Bush administration has dropped the ball on this.”