First Senate race debate set for Friday

The first debate between the two presumed candidates for state Senate District 7 is set for Friday at the Lamorinda Democratic Club’s monthly evening meeting.

Former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg and Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, will take questions from club members starting about 8 p.m. at the Orinda Community Church, 10 Irwin Way in Orinda.

The men are likely senate candidates but the outcome of a term limits measure on the February 2008 presidential ballot could dramatically alter the political landscape in this race and many others.

Here’s why: The February measure would allow lawmakers to serve up to 12 years in either the Senate or the Assembly, a shift from the current law which restricts officeholders to eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly. More relevant to the upcoming election, however, is a special provision in the proposed law that would allow incumbents who would have termed out under the old law to remain in office.

The incumbent senator in District 7 is Tom Torlakson of Antioch. If voters change the law, he says he will run for re-election. If law remains intact, Torlakson will run for his former Assembly seat now held by his friend, DeSaulnier. (Torlakson only served two terms in Assembly District 11 prior to running for the Senate, leaving him one term.)

Torlakson’s move to run for the Assembly forces DeSaulnier to seek the Senate seat in order to remain in the Legislature. The new law would also permit Canciamilla to run for his old Assembly seat, where he would most likely have to run against DeSaulnier.

Regardless of whether DeSaulnier and Canciamilla face off in the Senate or the Assembly primary, Friday night’s debate at the Lamorinda Democratic Club serves as the unofficial kick-off the contest between the two men.

It’s also an important event because this race will be very likely be decided in the June primary. Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans in this district and it’s unlikely that a member of the GOP could win here.

The members of the Lamorinda Democratic Party are generally liberal in their politics. Led by progressive advocate Terry Leach, former director of the Rockridge Institute, the well-attended club opposes the Iraq War and favors universal health care. The environment could feel friendlier to DeSaulnier, who is the more liberal of the two candidates, as Canciamilla is widely known for his involvement in the “Mod Squad” in the Legislature, a coalition of moderate lawmakers of both parties.

The debate is open to the public. Admission is $5 and free for students. For more details, call
925-210-7337 or visit www.lamorindademoclub.com.


Canciamilla officially enters Senate race

Former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg formally entered the Democratic primary race today for Senate District 7in Contra Costa County.

The incumbent, Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, terms out next year. Of course, that could change if voters support a bill on the February ballot that alters term limits; Torlakson has said he will run for re-election to his Senate seat.

Barring passage of the term limits bill, Canciamilla, a moderate who often sparred with Democratic Party leaders during his six years in Sacramento, will most likely face Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord.

It will be a difficult race for Canciamilla on several fronts.

Although he has raised nearly $500,000, DeSaulnier has deep ties to labor unions and other traditional sources of campaign cash for liberal Democrats. DeSaulnier also has the support of high-profile lawmakers such as Torlakson and Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez.

Voter turn-out in June 2008 could also be a factor. Many are predicting sparse turn-out because the state shifted the presidential primary to February. In a Democratic primary, low turn-out historically favors the candidate viewed as more liberal because independents who might have voted for a moderate tend to stay away from the polls.

Canciamilla said he decided to run because he has a broad range of experience he hopes to use to find solutions to some of California’s thorniest problems such as ongoing budget deficits, a need for healthcare reform and the Delta water crisis.

Until he was termed out in 2006, Canciamilla had been in elected office for 34 years. In addition to the Assembly, he has been elected to the Pittsburg School Board, City of Pittsburg and the Board of Supervisors.

As a supervisor, he is probably best known for his successful 2000 campaign to tighten the county’s growth boundary. And as a legislator, he helped lead the “Mod Squad,” a bipartisan coalition of moderate state lawmakers who proposed their own budget solutions and promoted the election of moderate candidates throughout the state.

He has also launched an initiative to fight renewed interest in the construction of the Peripheral Canal in the Delta, a water conveyance that East Bay critics say will result in the loss of critical water supplies.

“I have a lot of experience, in the local, education, municipal and special district levels, and the Senate is a logical place to put it to use,” Canciamilla said.

Critics, however, say Canciamilla’s unquestioned intellect combined with his sharp tongue alienated his colleagues and left him unable to advance his own agenda. He also ran afoul of the League of Conservation Voters, who disliked Canciamilla’s votes on some environmental issues and sent out critical mailers in his Assembly district.

But Canciamilla doesn’t consider his lack of ties to Democratic Party leaders or his often contentious relationships with special interest groups a detriment to his candidacy among average voters.

“I’m not part of the Democratic Party’s ‘in crowd’ and I never have been,” he said. “I’m not willing to pay the price of admission to that club. So, the voters will have a choice.”

For more details on Canciamilla’s candidacy, visit his web site which went live today at www.JoeforSenate2008.com.

Click here to link to DeSaulnier’s campaign web site.

What about the Republican candidates, you ask?

There aren’t any yet and while the GOP might find a warm body to slap onto the ballot by the sign-up deadline, it won’t matter. Democrats have a nearly 17 percentage point registration advantage in this district, which means the senator will be selected in the Democrat primary.


McCain talks about the Iraq War

Maverick GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., made his case before an estimated 400 appreciative California Republicans this afternoon, delivering a safe and mostly low-key speech centered on the Iraq War.

McCain reiterated his support for continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and warned that premature withdrawal from the embattled region would embolden neighboring Iran and its extremist Islamic regime.

While the Iraq War is not popular among the general public, McCain received warm and repeated applause among the Republicans who paid for a banquet chicken lunch and the opportunity to hear McCain speak at the swanky Renaissance Esmeralda Resort and Spa.

“I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders (in Iraq) and the terrible price we have paid for them,” McCain said to broad applause and a few who got on their feet. “But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will, and I am as sure of this as I am of anything, seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life.”

The warm applause appeared among most to be a show of support for McCain as a celebrated Vietnam War hero rather than as a presidential candidate. Reaction after the speech focused almost solely on their respect for McCain’s military record but few seemed to view that experience as a reason to send the senator to the White House.

A straw poll of 208 delegates — a third of those attending the convention — showed overwhelming support for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 63 percent, followed by Fred Thompson at 17 percent. McCain was a distant fourth at 3 percent.

Nonetheless, McCain soldiered through his speech after showing a short video about his Vietnam experience and some funny comments from his 95-year-old mother who unabashedly endorses her son for president. It opened with very touching footage of an interview with McCain after he was released from the infamous prison of war camp called the “Hanoi Hilton.”

McCain also offered the Republicans a preview of how he is likely to react to next week’s long-awaited report on Iraq from Gen. David Petraeus, where the general is expected to ask for more time in Iraq.

“We must give Gen. Petraeus and the Americans has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East and a more secure future for the American people,” McCain said to more applause.

In a short press conference after the speech, the soft-spoken McCain defended his support of an unpopular war even though he knows it will cost him votes.

The consequences of losing the war on radical Islam are so great, McCain said, that he is will pay whatever political consequences are meted out.

For political junkies who want to read his full speech, I’ve post it below. (It’s a version delivered to the press before he delivered it but he followed the text very closely.)

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver remarks to the California Republican Party Convention today, Saturday, September 8th at 12:00 p.m. PDT. Below are McCain’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

Thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to speak before the Golden State Republicans at your convention. I stand before you at a perilous time, a perilous time for our party but, far more important, a perilous time for our country.

We face an implacable enemy dedicated to our destruction. We face criticism at home and abroad. Some doubt that we can prevail against our enemies Islamic extremists that operate in Europe, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Just this week, terrorist plots were uncovered in Denmark and Germany that had the potential to kill hundreds or thousands demonstrating how serious the threat is, yet much of Washington remains mired in irresolution and defeatism.

Three decades ago, a visionary politician described the dangers in the world. It was, like today, a time when some doubted America’s goodness and greatness. Many argued for reconciliation with our global adversary. But this man held firm. He did not care what editorial boards wrote about him. He did what he thought was right. He criticized the liberal Democrats’ foreign policy of weakness and vacillation. He called for resolve and firmness in dealing with the Soviet Union. And, he refused to condemn millions to perpetual Communist tyranny in the false hope that accommodating the Soviet Union would contribute to America’s security.

Fortunately, this man, Governor Reagan, became President Reagan. How different would our lives be had he not won election in 1980 and 1984? Does anyone believe a liberal Democratic President would have called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” or would have stood up to the nuclear freeze movement? Can you imagine a liberal Democratic President saying communism should be left on the ash heap of history, or calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall? While many Democrats tried to defund weapons systems and freedom fighters, Ronald Reagan was steadfast and he was right. Thanks to his leadership, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War was won on our terms.

Today, the challenges are at least as severe as they were when Ronald Reagan stood tall. And, today, the differences between Republicans and Democrats on national security are every bit as stark as they were 30 years ago. Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates vote against funding for our troops engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates question whether there is a war on terror, offer to enter into unconditional negotiations with our worst enemies, and talk about countering the forces of radicalism by advocating surrender to them in Iraq. If the Democrats get their way in Iraq, if we cede Iraq to al Qaeda, how long will they stay the course in Afghanistan? We face grave challenges in the Middle East: halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions; protecting our democratic ally, Israel; supporting moderate voices in the face of the killers of Hamas and Hezbollah; defending Lebano n’s sovereignty in the face of Syrian and Iranian aggression. Does anyone seriously believe that we can better meet those challenges in the aftermath of an American defeat in Iraq? It is irresponsible to think so, and any man or woman who does isn’t prepared to lead our country in the struggle against Islamic extremism.

The world Ronald Regan faced was a dangerous one, but more stable than the world today. It was a world where we confronted a massive, organized threat to our security. Our enemy was evil, but not irrational. And for all the suffering endured by captive nations; for all the fear of global nuclear war; it was a world made fairly predictable by a stable balance of power until our steadfastness and patience yielded an historic victory for our security and ideals. That world is gone, and please don’t mistake my reminiscence as an indication that I miss it. If I’m nostalgic for it at all, it is only an old man’s nostalgia for the time where he misspent his youth. That world, after all, had much cruelty and terror, some of which it was my fate to witness personally.

Today, we glimpse the prospect of another, better world, in which all people might someday share in the blessings and responsibilities of freedom. But we also face a threat, and a long war to defeat it, that is as difficult and in many respects more destabilizing than any challenge we have ever faced. We confront an enemy that so despises us and modernity itself that they would use any means, unleash any terror, cause the most unimaginable suffering to harm us, and to destroy the world we have tried throughout our history to build.

As we meet here today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. As we all know, the war in Iraq has not gone well, and the American people have grown sick and tired of it. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will and I am as sure of this as I am of anything seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life. Like you, I want our troops to come home, but I want them to come home with honor. The honor of victory that is due all of those w ho have paid with the ultimate sacrifice so that sacrifice is not in vain.

We have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a counterinsurgency strategy that I have called for from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn’t strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, we must give General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. To concede defeat as many leading Democrats now advocate — would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

Let me be clear: choosing to lose in Iraq would hand a victory to the radicals in control of Iran. As Iran’s president recently crowed, “soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region [and] we are prepared to fill the gap.” Iran has been engaged in a proxy war against our forces in Iraq for years. They are actively arming Sunni and Shia radicals with advanced weapons and on the ground training. Twenty seven years ago, the radical mullahs in Iran released American hostages held illegally for more than 400 days rather than face President Reagan. It was the first victory of his presidency and we should heed the lesson it holds for dealing with Iran today: determination and resolve, not accommodation and appeasement, are what Tehran heeds.

Ronald Reagan warned of the need for firmness and vigilance in the 1970s. Unfortunately, we did not heed his wisdom and we paid a horrible price for weakness and inattention toward the threat posed by Islamic extremism in the 1990s. But today, our defeat in Iraq would be even more catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and I cannot and will not be complicit in it. I will do whatever I can to help avert it. That is all I can offer my country. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that and am humbled by it. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my fellow Americans, as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed. And I believe that if we persevere we can succeed on the battlefield of Iraq and in the larger war against Islamic extremism.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

War is a terrible thing, but not the worst thing. Our military men and women have endured the dangers and deprivations of war so that the worst thing would not befall us, so that America might be secure in her freedom. The war in Iraq has divided the American people, but it has divided no American in our admiration for the men and women who are fighting for us there. It is every veteran’s hope that should their children be called upon to answer a call to arms, the battle will be necessary and the field well chosen. But that is not their responsibility. It belongs to the government that called them. As it once was for us, their honor will be in their answer not their summons. Whatever we think about how and why we went to war in Iraq, we are all those who supported the decision that placed them in harm’s way and those who opposed it humbled by and grateful for their example. They now deserve the distinction of the best Ameri cans, and we owe them a debt we can never fully repay. We can only offer the small tribute of our humility and our commitment to do all that we can do, in less trying and costly circumstances, to help keep this nation worthy of their sacrifice for us and for the world.

In 1974, Ronald Reagan gave his famous “Shining City Upon a Hill” speech and concluded by saying:

“We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us in the little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.’

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”

It was my privilege to hear Governor Reagan deliver that speech. I had recently been released from a long involuntary captivity and was seated as Governor Reagan’s guest. His words ring true today when, once again, it falls to America to lead the world against a global threat as the last best hope of man on earth.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country that has sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom. I have lived a long, eventful and blessed life. I have had the good fortune to know personally a great many brave and selfless patriots who sacrificed and shed blood to defend America. But I have known none braver or better than those who do so today. They are my inspiration. And I pray to a loving God that He bless and protect them.

Thank you.


GOP to welcome John McCain

It’s just after noon and the ballroom at the swank Renaissance Esmeralda Resort and Spa in Indian Wells is bustling with trendy music and the clank of glasses.

About 400 Republicans gathered for their twice-yearly convention are awaiting the appearance of presidential candidate and Ariz. Sen. John McCain, the one-time frontrunner whose campaign has fallen on hard times.

But McCain is the only presidential hopeful to show up at this convention, a function of the heavy campaigning underway in pivotal states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

McCain may be an underdog but the Republicans at this convention clearly want a chance to hear and see the guy in person, so much so that they were willing to buy a lunch ticket for a banquet meal.

Ah, McCain has just been announced. I’ll post an entry on his speech later this afternoon.

Post-script: A delegate just came by with preliminary results of a straw poll asking delegates their preference for president. It appears that with 200 delegates voting, 62 percent favor Rudy Giuliani followed by Fred Thompson in second place.


Wilson poll shows strong name recognition

A poll commissioned by San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson shows him with a commanding lead in name recognition over his Republican challengers in the Assembly District 15 race.

Assembly District 15, held today by soon-to-be-termed-out Guy Houston of San Ramon, encompasses portions of the San Ramon Valley along with the San Joaquin and Sacramento counties. Click here to see a map of the district.

The survey of 300 registered voters in the district in mid-July found that 21 percent of those questioned have a positive view of Wilson. In a distant second place is Livermore optometrist Scott Kamena with 8 percent. Party activist and businesswoman Judy Biviano Lloyd and retired entrepreneur Robert Rao tied for third at 2 percent.

Probolsky Research of Laguna Hills conducted the telephone survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.8 percent.

Keep in mind, this was the only question for which the Wilson campaign released the results; don’t expect them to show anything other than favorable numbers. And voters probably haven’t given this race much thought yet; the election isn’t until June, for goodness sake.

But there’s no question that Wilson, as an elected mayor, goes into this race with a significant advantage when it comes to name recognition in the San Ramon Valley.

On the other hand, Wilson’s opponents have the lead in the money race.

Lloyd and Kamena have gotten the jump on Wilson in fundraising, largely because the mayor was focused on his re-election to the city post. (The filing deadline has now passed the Wilson is unopposed for the November 2007 election.)

And Rao has vowed to write as many personal checks as necessary to get his name out before voters.

The fifth declared Republican, Joe Rubay, only recently entered the race and was apparently not included in the poll.

Click here to download the poll.


AD15 swells by one more

Round and round the Assembly District 15 candidate wheel goes and where she stops, nobody knows.

A 13th person has filed a statement of intent to run for AD15, the seat held by termed out Assemblyman Guy Houston, R-San Ramon. Houston sweetened the pot further when he announced last week that he would run for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and forgo a re-election bid if voters in February alter term limits. Under the measure, Houston would be eligible to serve another six years in the Assembly.

Could this be a record number of candidates filing for an open Assembly seat?

The lucky 13th name on the list is Democrat John D. Taylor, an Elk Grove school teacher who lives in Sacramento on the far edge of this gerrymandered district.

Although the Secretary of State’s web site lists 13 people for AD15, there are only 11 people actively campaigning. Democrats Terry Coleman, who ran and lost in 2006, and Livermore school principal Chris Van Schaack, withdrew from the race after filing their statements of intent.

The Republican line-up includes Livermore optometrist Scott Kamena, retired auto dealership owner Robert Rao; party activist and Pleasanton businesswoman Judy Biviano Lloyd, San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson and Danville real estate appraiser Joe Rubay.

On the Democratic side, the candidates are health insurance agent and former airline pilot Steve Filson, Danville electrician Stevan Thomas, businessman Fred Klaske, Elk Grove resident Davies Ononiwu and San Ramon Valley School District Trustee Joan Buchanan.