U.S. Senate

Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez agree to one Senate debate

September 7, 2016 By Christopher Cadelago 1 Comment

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez, the Democrats running to succeed U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, have agreed to hold one general election debate.

The Sanchez campaign and debate sponsors confirmed Wednesday that the Oct. 5 debate from Los Angeles would proceed after weeks of wrangling over the fall schedule. Harris, the frontrunner, came out first in agreeing to the Los Angeles debate, as well as a planned Sept. 20 TV debate in Sacramento.

Sanchez, said two head-to-head debates would not suffice, and refused to participate in the Sacramento event. On Tuesday, she challenged Harris to a series of four debates, all in Los Angeles. Harris’ camp has maintained that if Sanchez wanted more than one meeting she should have agreed to appear in Sacramento for the debate proposed by The Sacramento Bee, KUVS Univision 19, KVIE, Capital Public Radio and California State University, Sacramento. …

Click here to read the full article

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Barbara Boxer, Debates, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez, Senate debate, U.S. Senate, U.S. Senate Race

Kamala Harris might be in for a surprise in November

May 19, 2016 By Mark Pulliam 9 Comments

In the wacky world of California politics, it’s a virtual certainty that no Republican will make it past the June 7 primary in the race to succeed retiring U.S. senator Barbara Boxer. California attorney general Kamala Harris has a comfortable — but not overwhelming — lead over fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez, a congresswoman from Orange County. Three Republican candidates trail far behind. Due to California’s unusual election rules, the top two vote-getters in the primary — regardless of party affiliation — will face each other in November. If the current polling stands, the general election to fill the senate seat Boxer has held since 1992 will likely be a contest between two liberal Democrats: Harris (now at 27 percent) and Sanchez (at 14 percent).

The most popular Republican currently in the race — with a scant 5 percent in the polls — is Ron Unz. A gadfly businessman-activist and former 1994 gubernatorial candidate, Unz espouses an eclectic platform that includes raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour, restricting immigration, and challenging the science behind “climate change.” Unz, who admits that his primary reason for running is to head off efforts to repeal Proposition 227, the 1998 ballot measure he championed to dismantle California’s ruinous bilingual education system, has the endorsement of Ron Paul. Former California Republican Party chairman George “Duf” Sundheim, a Bay Area attorney, languishes at 2 percent. The previous Republican “frontrunner,” GOP state assemblyman Rocky Chavez, who had been polling in the single digits, dropped out in February due to fundraising difficulties.

The Democrats’ poll rankings have remained relatively steady for months, despite the millions raised and spent by Harris. Demographic shifts and an exodus of middle-class voters have turned California into a one-party state. In statewide races, the GOP has become irrelevant; Republican candidates regularly lose by over a million votes. Accepting the “lesser-of-two-evils” reality of California politics, the right-leaning Orange County Register recently endorsed Sanchez, largely because of her opposition to the Iraq War, USA PATRIOT Act and the $700 billion bank bailout.

It’s a testament to liberal hegemony in California that Sanchez is considered a moderate. She has a 100 percent score from Planned Parenthood, a zero rating from the American Conservative Union, an “F” from the National Rifle Association, and a record of voting with Nancy Pelosi (when she was House speaker) 97.8 percent of the time. Sanchez has taken flack for her suggestion — based on experts’ estimates — that between 5 and 20 percent of American Muslims are potential radicals who support the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Her statement, issued in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December, was immediately (and predictably) criticized by the Council on Islamic-American Relations and other Muslim groups. Harris, by contrast, has called opposition to resettling Syrian refugees “purely anti-Muslim rhetoric.” “We have to embrace our Muslim brothers and sisters wherever they are and not assume that because of the God they pray to and believe in that they are terrorists that are going to harm us when they come here,” she declared in a recent debate.

Given the Left’s dominance in California, Republican Sundheim’s warning that the stylish Harris is an unprincipled tool of the public employee unions, trial lawyers and environmentalists — not to mention an enemy of law enforcement — won’t have much effect on her support among Democrats. She is a popular two-term attorney general and the media’s darling. Her record as a consumer advocate who favors gun control and comprehensive immigration reform has great appeal to her party’s core voters.

In the final weeks of the primary campaign, Harris and Sanchez will campaign as the unabashed liberals they are, almost certainly finishing first and second in a crowded field of 34 candidates. November, however, may be a different story. Harris, who will out-poll Sanchez in June, could nonetheless lose in November. Sanchez has several advantages heading into the general election. Southern California’s large Hispanic population will likely turn out for her. Moreover, Golden State Republicans, having no candidate of their own to support, will be forced to choose between Harris and Sanchez. GOP voters in California are a minority but they still number in the millions. In a presidential election year, they will turn out in force. Expect them to vote for the least liberal of the Senate candidates on the ballot — Loretta Sanchez.

Mark Pulliam, a long-time California resident, fled to Texas in 2012.

This piece was originally published by City Journal Online

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: City Journal, Duf Sundheim, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez, Mark Pulliam, U.S. Senate

SCOTUS Showdown: Obama’s Dysfunctional Relationship With Congress

February 25, 2016 By John Mirisch Leave a Comment

After this week’s news that Republican Senate leaders will not even consider any Supreme Court nominee until a new president is in office, current President Obama is taking it to the streets in an effort to get his yet unnamed pick approved. Or at least to make some much-needed political hay.

In a guest column on the acronymically-named SCOTUSblog, Obama makes his case that he will do his constitutional duty by naming an appointment and he expects the Senate will do the same by giving the Obama nominee a fair hearing and, at least in Obama’s world, the thumbs up in an up-or-down vote.

The president’s implication is that he is fulfilling his duty while a Republican Senate contingent which has clearly stated it will not act on a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Scalia until the next president is in office, would be guilty of a dereliction of duty. If you read between the lines, it almost could be an admonition straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan: “He has done his duty. I will do mine. Go ye and do yours.”

Obama talks about his putative nominee’s virtuous qualities: fierce independence; understanding the role of the judiciary in interpreting, not making law; a keen intellect; faultless integrity. Of course. But let’s cut through the crap. At this stage it’s all political posturing. On both sides.

And in some ways, the president’s predicament reminds me of situations faced by the kids in my high school forensics class who after getting busted by the teacher for some infraction or other were faced with detention or another equally odious punishment. In such situations, Bonnie Miller’s response was invariably the same: “Sorry, hon, you did it to yourself.”

In the past, we have heard criticisms from the White House when Congress passed bills which the president had signaled he would veto. On such occasions it was as if one could hear in the background of the White House declarations Seinfeld’s Larry Thomas deliver one of his lesser-known classic lines with gusto: “Please, you’re wasting everyone’s time.” The president would then go on to veto the bill in question with a slight head-shake, as if to say “kids will be kids.”

On a number of occasions, if the president wanted to be spared the inconvenience of a veto, he got his Senate acolytes to use the filibuster. In this way, for example, he was able to see his recent Iran deal sail through, despite majority opposition in both houses of Congress. While the deal was voted down by the House, it failed to get an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

At that time, of course, it was the Republican Senate leadership which decried the Democrats’ use of the filibuster. As a key element of American foreign policy, the Iran deal, they claimed, deserved a full hearing and an up-or-down vote. The Democrats not only responded with the “waste of time” argument, but also suggested that the use of the filibuster was simply yet another way in which – through their duly elected Senators – the people of the United States were speaking. Sorry, Republicans, you didn’t have the votes. Next!

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are crying “Foul!” and trying parse the differences between their own use of the filibuster and the Republicans’ unwillingness to consider any Obama SCOTUS nominee, which is in itself a form of filibuster.

“Ah, but the filibuster is often used when it comes to legislation. It is unprecedented when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.”

This is sheer nonsense, and it is all political game-playing within the wacky, arcane set of rules the Senate in all its old-school glory sets for itself. When you change those rules, as for instance when the Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees, don’t be surprised when the new rules are used against you if ever that shoe moves feet. And be even less surprised when the existing rules are used against you. You’re all playing by the same rules, unless, of course, you change them.

Let me make it clear: I personally believe the Republicans in the Senate should give any Obama nominee a hearing (though I do not feel their “advise and consent” role obligates them to an up-or-down vote). If anything, the Republicans are playing within those old-school rules which allow them to make a decision without actually voting on it. They are not changing the rules, as the Democrats did when they used the nuclear option.

Now it is the president who is on notice that his nominee has no chance of clearing the Senate, as the Senate exercises its constitutionally mandated “advise and consent” role. In this case of reversed fortunes, it is the Senate which effectively is threatening a veto. And yet, just as the Republicans in Congress don’t always pay heed to the president’s veto threat when it comes to legislation, the president himself seems undeterred by the Senate’s veto threat.

It’s a classic game of political chicken. This time the Republicans will want to frame the matter as one of the American People’s right to decide the matter through the upcoming presidential election; they will want to paint the president as “wasting time.” The president will want to paint the Republicans as “obstructionist” and “derelict in their duties.” Each side will attempt to inflict the maximum amount of political damage on the other in this election year.

In a sense, the president is reaping what he has sowed through his inability to reach across the aisle during his 7+ years in office. Ultimately, the SCOTUS showdown and game-playing are nothing more than a symptom of his dysfunctional relationship with the Republicans in Congress, which has been exacerbated by his own abuse of executive orders. In short: how can Republicans in Congress trust the president to pick a justice who understands the Supreme Court’s constitutionally mandated role when he himself doesn’t seem to understand his own?

Just as Republicans shouldn’t be surprised when the president follows through with a threatened veto, so should the president not be surprised when the Senate, led by the Republicans, exercises its veto. The immortal words of Bonnie Miller seem to ring truer than ever before.

John Mirisch has served on the Beverly Hills City Council since 2009. He is currently Vice Mayor and will become Mayor next month. In a previous turn as Mayor he created the Sunshine Task Force to increase transparency and public engagement in local government.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, John Mirisch, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, U.S. Senate

2016 U.S. Senate Race: Can Duf Sundhiem Crack Top 2 Primary?

October 22, 2015 By John Hrabe Leave a Comment

It’s been 27 years since a California Republican has won a campaign for U.S. Senate.

The deck may be stacked against Republicans in California, but Duf Sundheim isn’t discouraged. The former California Republican Party chairman and small business attorney says that his underdog campaign for U.S. Senate is motivated by a desire to give average people “a voice in their government.”

“The people of California are tired of the professional political class of both parties who make promises that they never keep,” Sundheim said. “For over a decade, we have taken on the establishment of both parties and won.”

If Sundheim’s independent message doesn’t sound like the 2016 GOP presidential contenders, that’s because of the unique electoral landscape in California.

Top 2: Only Democratic options

Next year’s U.S. Senate race will be the first such election under California’s Top 2 Primary, which advances the top two primary candidates to the general election regardless of political party. Although Republicans struck out in every statewide race last November, the party succeeded in getting a candidate through the June primary election and onto the November general election ballot for every partisan statewide race. But only barely.

The June 2014 primary for state controller ended in a virtual four-way tie between two Democrats and two Republicans. Most political analysts believe that the Republican candidates, including an unknown candidate that spent $100 on a four-word ballot statement, were aided by the historically low turnout.

It won’t take much for Democrats to improve on those numbers. Historically, voter turnout is higher in presidential election years than in gubernatorial election years. Moreover, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ insurgent challenge to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination could further boost turnout among CA Democrats, who outnumber Republicans by 2.68 million voters.

Early polling show the effects of that favorable electoral landscape for Democrats. A Field Poll of more than 1,000 registered voters taken from September 17 to October 4 found Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez safely in second place to frontrunner Attorney General Kamala Harris. Sundheim and his fellow Republican candidates, Asm. Rocky Chavez and former California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, managed only single digits.

“Both Harris and Sanchez are better known and are much more favorably regarded among the state’s likely voters than any of the three Republicans,” wrote Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. “As the election nears, this may create as much interest to who finishes second as to who wins the primary, since it will likely determine whether the fall general election will be a traditional Democrat vs. Republican affair or one that pits two Democrats against one another.”

Builds on Kashkari’s rhetoric

In an effort to prevent an all-Democrat November U.S. Senate showdown, Sundheim has built on the rhetorical foundation laid by 2014 GOP gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari to appeal to independent voters by focusing on jobs and poverty. Sundheim says the state has “suffered and economic earthquake,” which has left millions in poverty.

“We have seen one of the greatest accumulations of wealth in history, but 8.9 million Californians live in poverty,” he said, referring to an issue first raised by Kashkari’s gubernatorial campaign. “There are more people living in poverty in California than there are people in Nevada, Hawaii and Oregon combined.”

He added, “Now the fastest growing path to the middle class is a government job.”

Sundheim has shared this message and his experience as a federal court mediator and volunteer settlement judge beyond the partisan political chicken dinner circuit. The Stanford graduate has a track record of reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats that share his passion for improving the state. In 2012, Sundheim supported Democratic San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s pension reform proposals, which were overwhelmingly approved by voters.

Shultz, Chambers Campaign Co-Chairs

In his initial fundraising report, Sundheim announced that he’s raised more than $240,000 — an impressive figure without any loans and only three weeks after his announcement.

“We will have the money we will need not only to compete, but to win,” he said.

Sundheim’s confidence comes with a list of big name endorsements, including former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and Cisco’s John Chambers.

“I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and working with Duf for two decades, and I’ve seen how much he cares about the future of California and is inclusive of every one of its citizens,” said Chambers. “We need strong, principled leaders in Washington, DC who can bring together people from all political perspectives to craft workable solutions to our country’s most pressing problems. Duf Sundheim is that kind of leader.”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Duf Sundheim, Election 2016, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez, Neel Kashkari, U.S. Senate

Minor Scandal Overshadows Major Problems with AG Harris’ U.S. Senate Bid

May 23, 2015 By Steven Greenhut Leave a Comment

A strange story has emerged from the California Department of Justice. An aide to Attorney General Kamala Harris named Brandon Kiel wasbusted along with two friends for operating a bogus police force. The scandal hasn’t touched Harris, though she is running to replace Barbara Boxer in the Senate next year. But the story does raise some questions about politics in a one-party state.

On its website, the Masonic Fraternal Police Order compares itself with other police departments: “We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper then (sic) an application. . . . Our mission is to preserve the integrity, honor and legacy of our Founding Fathers, Masonic Organizations, all Grand Masters and their Constitution/By Laws.” Kiel was charged with impersonating a police officer after he reportedly began contacting legitimate police departments to alert them that the MFPO—with connections that its members claim go back to the Knights Templar and ancient Mexico—would be launching operations in their jurisdictions.

Harris can’t be blamed for the bizarre MFPO episode, but the incident could foreshadow more trying times ahead for the senate hopeful. Until recently, she hadn’t been running so much as strolling toward the nomination, with the blessing of the Bay Area Democratic Party machine. That began to change last week when Loretta Sanchez, a nine-term congresswoman from Santa Ana in Southern California, announced that she would challenge Harris for the nomination. Things quickly turned ugly, as Harris blasted Sanchez for allegedly insulting Native Americans. It remains to be seen if Sanchez can capitalize on Harris’s problematic tenure as attorney general.

The real problem with Harris is her blind loyalty to her political allies, exemplified by her habit of assigning skewed titles and summaries to proposed statewide voter initiatives. These short descriptions—placed on measures before supporters gather signatures to qualify them for the ballot—make or break the initiatives, because they are usually the only things that voters read. When supporters of a pension-reform initiative submitted it to the attorney general in 2013, Harris attached an adverse description designed to kill it. As the Sacramento Bee put it, gently: “The wording is supposed to be neutral. But recent attorneys general, who are responsible for titles and summaries, have meddled, knowing many voters make up their minds based on the 100-word summations. Attorney General Kamala Harris has been especially freewheeling. That needs to stop.”

Another part of the attorney general’s job is to approve sales of any nonprofit hospital to a for-profit operation. When the nonprofit Daughters of Charity wanted to sell six hospitals to a for-profit operator that would keep them open, Harris approved—but imposed so many costly and difficult conditions that the transaction fell through. Critics accused Harris of acting like an advocate for the SEIU, the massive union representing health-care workers that opposed the deal, rather than as an impartial representative of the people.

Like many San Francisco politicians, Harris is no friend of the Second Amendment, but even some liberals were surprised when she championed an arcane state law banning gun shops from displaying ads of handguns outside their stores. The law, passed decades ago to discourage gun ownership by Chinese and Mexican immigrants, isarguably a violation of the First Amendment. Yet Harris defended the statute as necessary to halt “impulse” gun purchases—never mind the state’s longstanding 10-day waiting period.

In 2013, Harris helped secure a record $1 million fine against two conservative groups that had improperly reported the source of the funding they used to oppose one initiative proposing a tax increase and to support another limiting the ability of unions to use member dues for political purposes. Would she have been so zealous against liberal political funders? Then, as I reported in December, Harris demanded that the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation turn over its donor lists in order to be cleared for operation in California. Harris claimed that she would keep the information confidential. But in an early ruling in favor of AFP’s First Amendment challenge to Harris’s demands, U.S. District Judge Manuel Reed noted that such a promise is “entirely discretionary and could change at any moment.” Harris’s office was trying to grab the names of conservative donors in a move reminiscent of the IRS’s attempts to extract information from conservative nonprofits. The courts have since backed her position, but the episode reinforced one of the key allegations against Harris: that she is first and foremost a partisan.

In a one-party state such as California, these policy concerns get a shrug—and even a weird scandal involving the Knights Templar prompts little more than a chuckle. Perhaps a serious primary fight will bring more of these strange tales to light.

Steven Greenhut is the California columnist for U-T San Diego. Write to him at steven.greenhut@utsandiego.com.

Originally published by City Journal

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Election 2016, Kamala Harris, U.S. Senate

Loretta Sanchez Will Challenge Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate Seat

May 15, 2015 By John Hrabe 1 Comment

Flanked by a group of supporters at the Santa Ana train station, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove, officially launched her campaign to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer.

Thursday’s announcement, one day before the California Democratic Party’s spring convention, sets up a Democratic women showdown between Sanchez and Attorney General Kamala Harris. Under California’s Top 2 Primary, both Democrats could make it past the June primary and into a November 2016 general election run-off.

“I’m running to give a voice to every Californian,” said Sanchez, a moderate Democrat from Orange County. “I’m running for Senate because I bring national security and military experience in these critical times.”

Sanchez’s record in Congress

Sanchez brings to the race an impressive campaign resume that began with an improbable upset of six-term GOP Rep. Bob Dornan in 1996, an election she won by fewer than 1,000 votes. During her 10 terms in Washington, D.C., Sanchez has served on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee as well as been an influential member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“There are two kinds of candidates,” Sanchez said at her campaign kick-off. “Those who want to be something and those who want to do something. I am running for Senate because I am a doer.”

If Sanchez prevails in her first statewide campaign, she’ll become the the first Latina ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Before she can make history, she’ll need to overcome demographic challenges with her key voting blocs: Southern Californians and Latinos. Both groups represent a large number of raw voters, who traditionally turn out in lower numbers than the statewide average.

No coronation for Kamala Harris

In January, Boxer announced that she would retire after four terms in the U.S. Senate. Although Harris quickly entered the race, other big-name Democrats seemed uninterested in challenging the state’s top law enforcement officer.

For months, it looked like Harris might simply take over the seat without a challenge from any of the next generation of Democratic leaders. In quick succession, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Treasurer John Chiang, billionaire climate-change activist Tom Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa each announced that they would forgo the race.

Earlier this week, Sanchez appeared to be latest Democrat to pass on the race. Sanchez’s team released a draft email announcing her campaign kick-off, but then quickly retracted the announcement, saying that she was still undecided.

That indecision caused the Los Angeles Times to complain that Harris’ coronation was bad for the democratic process.

“An unopposed candidacy is great for political parties, not for voters or democracy,” the Times wrote in its May 14 editorial. “A strong field of Democratic candidates is more likely to ensure that campaign debates cover topics Democrats care about, and elicit authentic answers instead of canned responses. Without such a vigorous vetting, Harris would be able to script her communication so carefully as to be meaningless.”

Harris campaign jabs “culture of dysfunction”

Harris’ campaign wasted no time in welcoming Sanchez to the race with a subtle jab at Washington’s “culture of dysfunction.”

“The attorney general looks forward to a lively discussion about who is best equipped to help change the culture of dysfunction in Washington, D.C. and make a difference in the lives of Californians,” said Nathan Click, spokesman for the Harris campaign.

In addition to hailing from opposite ends of the state, the two Democratic women bring remarkably different styles, backgrounds and personalities to the campaign. The differences were evidenced in their campaign kick-offs: Sanchez with a traditional campaign rally, Harris an email announcement.

They’ve also risen through the political ranks in different ways. Sanchez fought her way into elected office after losing a 1994 campaign for Anaheim City Council. Harris benefited from an early political appointment by her longtime benefactor, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

Sanchez’s greatest asset might be her blunt, straight-talking demeanor, which could further expose Harris as a controlled and calculating politician. With a more direct style and off-the-cuff remarks that occasionally get her into trouble, Sanchez has managed to create a cult following with her annual Christmas card. In contrast, even Harris’ backers have described her as “too cautious,” a trait that could hamper her in a contested statewide primary.

Possibility of all Democrat run-off

Some political analysts say that there’s a strong chance that both Harris and Sanchez could both make the November run-off. On the Republican side, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Carlsbad has raised just $12,030 – a fundraising haul more befitting of a city council race. The only other announced Republican candidate, former California Republican Party chairman Tom Del Beccaro, has never won elected office.

“Lots of Republicans will end up on the ballot which means that we could see two Dems if it is just the two of them,” said Matt Rexroad, one of the state’s top Republican political consultants and a Yolo County Supervisor.

Rexroad, who does not have a client in the U.S. Senate race, gives the edge to Harris.

“In the end I think Harris has an impressive team that has shown a tremendous amount of discipline while Sanchez has been a side show,” said Rexroad, a partner at Meridian Pacific, a Sacramento-based consulting firm. “Advantage Harris on name ID, resume, and institutional support. The one thing Sanchez has going for her is the Latino surname.”

Other Democratic candidates are still considering the race, including Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles and former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera.