Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, last night introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

From Article I — “Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq” — to Article XXXV — “Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders” — the former Democratic presidential candidate laid out a comprehenisve indictment of the President’s actions. And he spent about five hours last night reading them into the Congressional record.

Reactions from Bay Area House members varied.

“I applaud Congressman Kucinich for bringing these articles of impeachment before the House and I support his effort,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, the Bay Area delegation’s newest member, went much further, commending Kucinich “for shining a light on the malfeasance of President Bush and his administration.

“I agree that America would not have gone to war, and more than 4,000 service members would still be alive, had the President not lied about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction,” Speier said. “Congress must continue to hold this administration accountable, now, and after they leave office next January.

“Had I been in Congress two years ago, I would have supported impeachment, but now, just months until the end of his term, it would not be the best use of taxpayer money to hold hearings that would accomplish nothing more than the calendar and the Constitution will take care of in due time,” Speier continued. “In fact, I believe impeaching the president would take longer than Congress has time left in this session. The only sure way to rid ourselves of the incompetence, arrogance and abject dishonesty of the last seven and a half years is to make sure we elect Barack Obama this November.”

But my requests for comment from House Speaker Nancy “Off the Table” Pelosi, D-San Francisco; Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Martinez; Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont; Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; and Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, went unanswered today.

UPDATE @ 12:4O P.M. WEDNESDAY: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, issued this statement today supporting impeachement:

“Five years ago, President Bush undertook a deliberate and concerted campaign to send our nation to war against Iraq. This was not a war of necessity, but a war of choice. President Bush manipulated the intelligence in order to convince the Congress, and the American Public, that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to our national security. A threat so grave, we were told, that continued diplomatic efforts would lead to mushroom clouds.

“There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and no terrorist connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that President Bush planned to invade Iraq long before Congress gave him the authorization to do so, and that he undertook a campaign to manipulate the intelligence regarding Iraq’s supposed weapons program.

“More than 4,000 brave men and women have paid for President Bush’s mistake with their lives. And tens of thousands of others will forever bear the physical and mental wounds of war. As a coequal branch of government the Congress owes it to each one of them, and their families, to hold those who led us to war under false pretences accountable.”

The House today passed the Farm Bill, H.R.2419, by a vote of 318-106. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco declared victory:

“The Farm Bill is a first step in reforming America’s farm policies and a giant leap forward in helping Americans who are struggling with the high cost of groceries and gasoline.

“By an overwhelming, veto-proof margin, the House approved a Farm Bill that will drastically increase nutrition initiatives that will help 38 million American families put healthy food on their table. As Time magazine recently pointed out, this legislation will also help to reduce rising food costs by providing emergency assistance to farmers to help them get their food to market, cutting ethanol subsidies, and increasing support for food banks, pantries, and soup kitchens.

“High energy prices are contributing to higher food prices and are straining family budgets, which is why the Farm Bill makes a $1 billion investment in energy independence and supports the transition to cellulosic ethanol. These efforts will help ensure that we send our energy dollars to the Midwest and across America, instead of the Middle East, and help reduce the high cost of energy.

“While I would have preferred additional commodity reforms, the bill does improve upon current law. With this legislation, the New Direction Congress will help families facing high food prices and fuel our nation’s energy needs with American-made, renewable energy.”

Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, said the bill makes historic investments in specialty crops like the almonds, asparagus, and grapes grown in San Joaquin County, in conservation efforts like soil erosion and clean air and water, as well as in renewable energy programs:

“This Farm bill invests in California’s priorities by ensuring that for the first time ever there are funds to support specialty crop research and expand specialty crop markets. I’m proud of this bill and the impact it will make in San Joaquin County and throughout California.

“The bill implements needed reforms to commodity and other payment programs cutting direct farm payments as well as payments to crop insurers making windfall profits. I would like to have seen more reforms and an even greater reduction in payments to commodity farmers, but the measures included here represent a very important first step.”

Representatives Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; George Miller, D-Martinez; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma; Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; and Mike Honda, D-San Jose all voted for the bill, too.

But Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, is having none of it:

“Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a Farm Bill Conference Report (H.R. 2419) that will continue our wasteful agricultural policy for another five years. It is a rare day indeed that I agree with President Bush, but he is absolutely right to have issued a veto threat of this bill.

“With farm income and food prices at or near record highs, now is the perfect time for reform. Unfortunately, this conference report, while masquerading as a reform package, simply tinkers around the edges of our bloated agri-business subsidies. Our current ‘farm policy’ is little more than corporate welfare, with benefits flowing to large corporate operations at the expense of small farmers, both here and abroad, who actually need help. Under current policy the top 10% of recipients received 75% of all subsidies, while 67% of farms receive nothing. This is not good for rural communities, small farms, or taxpayers.

“At best, this conference report represents ‘half a loaf,’ as the group Bread for the World has said. The conferees got the nutrition title right and I commend them for it. There are important changes to the eligibility rules for the food stamps program as well as a raise in the minimum benefit. These changes, along with increases in funding for emergency food aid will have a real impact on the millions of families who are struggling to put food on their tables. If all this bill contained were the nutrition title, I would proudly support it. For all the conference accomplished on nutrition, they failed in greater measure on reforming farm subsidies.

“Proponents of the conference report argue that it represents ‘reform.’ They can’t be serious. Under this so-called reform, farmers filing jointly could have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $2.5 million, or $1 million if their only source of income is farm-related and they could still receive subsidies. This amounts to cutting off only 0.3% of farmers from the dole. The report does nothing to means test countercyclical payments. Furthermore, the report creates an entirely new $4 billion permanent disaster program that is not only wasteful and redundant, but will also encourage pushing marginal and environmentally sensitive land into production. This is not reform.

“Real reform would mean eliminating all subsidizes for corn-based ethanol, which have driven up food costs around the world. Real reform would mean ending direct payments except for farmers who actually need assistance. By passing this bill, Congress is missing a golden opportunity to enact real reform. We should not wait another five years to make our farm policy equitable and responsible. By rejecting the conference report we can begin the important work of enacting a fair Farm Bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.”

Not many people voted in Tuesday’s special election which Jackie Speier won (at almost 78 percent) to fill the vacancy left by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos‘ death in February.

San Mateo County Elections Officer Warren Slocum today announced the turnout was “dismal” both in San Mateo County (25.9 percent) and in the City and County of San Francisco (24.7 percent). Those who did vote overwhelmingly did so by mail — 73 percent in both counties. In real numbers, 17,595 votes were cast at San Mateo County’s polls and 5,202 at San Francisco’s.

In San Mateo County, the cost works out to a whopping $26.70 per precinct voter. By comparison, the cost will be about $11.60 per mail voter.

“We will spend a million dollars to conduct an election that could have been held for less than half this money all because there is no enabling legislation to allow counties to conduct special elections by mail,” Slocum raged in his news release. “It’s outrageous. If we charged the cities a per voter cost of $26.70 per precinct voter, they would probably sue us.”

Slocum said San Mateo County’s in-person voting requires recruiting, training and placing more than 1,000 poll workers, 32 field technicians and 32 ride-along-coordinators to provide technical assistance in the field, 59 poll opening/closing technicians, and the delivery and retrieval of 2,128 pieces of equipment to 164 polling locations.

Slocum said many precincts saw fewer than 50 voters in the 13 hours they were open, including those just coming in to drop off mail-in ballots. That makes for an awfully boring day, he said, which makes recruiting workers for future elections harder.

“It’s actually one of the more difficult tasks that we’re faced with—and today’s poll workers need to be more savvy and more technically competent than ever before,” said Slocum. “Ask any chief elections officer in the state of California or in the country. It’s a common problem.”

Slocum says we simply can’t afford to conduct special elections like regular elections. “The federal and state governments do not provide any funding to cover these election costs and even if they did, the funds should not be wasted in this manner when there are viable alternatives that promote voting for less than half the cost. This is a disgrace.”

Anyhow, here’s today’s report on her first day on the job, and here’s video from yesterday of Speier’s swearing-in and first floor speech (in which she wasted no time criticizing the Iraq war, drawing boos and walkouts from Republicans):

Seeing Speier sworn in kinda gives you chills when you consider how long she has been trying to get there: She ran in the 1979 special election to succeed her former boss, Leo Ryan, who had been assassinated in November 1978 by Jim Jones’ People’s Temple gunmen in Guyana (where Speier herself was gravely wounded). A long, strange trip indeed…

The Secretary of State’s office today officially certified the five candidates who’ll compete in the April 8 special election to replace the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo. They are:

If one candidate receives a majority of the votes (50 percent plus one vote), no special general election will be held; that candidate will take the House seat for the rest of this term, through 2008’s end. If a special general election is necessary, it’ll be held June 3 — the same day as the regular primary election for that seat’s next term. Got it?

Moloney — who ran against Lantos as a Libertarian in 1998 and as a Republican in 2002 and 2006, getting 5 percent, 25 percent and 24 percent of the vote, respectively — put out a news release Sunday in the form of an open letter to Conlon, Hermanson and McMurry:

I feel very strongly that we should call the special election of April 8 to replace the late Tom Lantos off, and concede the seat to the princess Ms. Jackie Speier. By doing so, we will save the taxpayers of the 12th Congressional District approximately, $1,000.000 dollars. After all, the San Mateo and San Francisco county newspapers, pundits, and the political establishment have declared her a winner.

She is been declared a winner, it is all a charade, and we are being used as puppets to give her crowning legitimacy. The local news media, will not sponsor a debate, will not demand a debate, and frankly they do not have the ability to ask the tough questions regarding foreign affairs. In other words, because of all the cutbacks in the news industry, and the consolidation of the news, the local reporters do not have the time to educate the people.

In other words, is all a farce. Jackie Speier lays claim to the late congressman Tom Lantos’ seat. Tom Lantos, to the day of his depart was working to extricate the United States from Iraq, and to bring the troops home. Jackie Speier has absolutely no prior foreign policy experience, in fact, Tom Lantos said the same thing. Yet, what this Congressional race is all about is foreign policy. So you see why, I consider this whole process a waste of time. What do you think?

I think: Unlikely.

Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, a crusader for online freedoms who is turning his attention to political corruption, has decided not to run for the 12th Congressional District seat left vacant by the death of Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo.

From his blog:

With lots of mixed feelings, I have decided a run for Congress would not help the Change Congress movement. I explain the thinking in this 5 minute video (a new record for me!). First question: What happens to the contributions to Lessig08? As explained on the ActBlue page, all will go to (the yet to be established) Change Congress organization.

Thanks to everyone who helped me make this decision — and especially the many friends in the harshest way told me it would be a mistake.

So, say hello to Congresswoman Jackie Speier!

Lots goin’ on this past week, so I thought maybe we could recap some of the highlights…

We saw Bill Clinton in Oakland trying to mobilize a mostly-minority crowd for Hillary, and we saw Barack Obama in San Francisco trying to mobilize women.

We saw Tom Lantos endorse Jackie Speier to succeed him, and we saw Leland Yee promptly declare he’s not running — but wait, here comes Yul Kwon, a San Mateo management consultant who won the $1 million prize on “Survivor: Cook Islands” in 2006, reportedly considering a run. He’s a former aide to U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. — which quite frankly might be more hinderance than help in Lantos’ district.

We saw Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorse Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a state legislator could serve from 14 to 12, but would let him or her divide those years between the houses as they choose — and would grandfather current officeholders so people like Don Perata and Fabian Nunez could serve another term. The governor’s own party this week called Proposition “a self-serving measure, authored by a small group of state legislators seeking to extend their terms in office beyond the limits set by voters in Proposition 140.”

We saw the Green Party hold a presidential debate in San Francisco, with former George Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney a clear front-runner.

And we saw Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums give a passionate State of the City Address… but it’s not his passion with which some disgruntled residents are taking issue.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who announced this month that he’s suffering from esophageal cancer and so will retire from Congress at the end of this current, 14th term, today endorsed former state Senator Jackie Speier to succeed him.

“Jackie Speier has been working on behalf of the people of Peninsula and San Francisco for decades, and she is our best candidate for the United States Congress,” Lantos said in a news release. “From her earliest days as a staff member for the late Leo Ryan to the offices she has held at the local and state levels, Jackie has always been a first-class public servant who has made the community’s most pressing priorities her own. With her impressive record of achievement and her unique life experience, Jackie will bring to Washington all the heart and soul, muscle and grit that makes for an effective new member of the House.”

Speier, who ran a close but unsuccessful race for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in 2006 and was termed out of the Legislature later that year, has been polling and lining up donors for this race for almost a year, and formally declared her candidacy Sunday. State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who succeeded Speier in that state Senate seat, announced Monday he won’t run against her for Lantos’.

From TPM Election Central:

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) might be on the verge of facing a really tough primary challenge. Former state Sen. Jackie Speier claims she has an internal poll that shows her beating Lantos in the primary by a 57%-27% margin. Speier has some name recognition built up after she ran for Lt. Governor in 2006, narrowly losing the Democratic primary, but she has not yet officially announced a campaign against Lantos.

Speier’s pollster also told Roll Call that her poll did not include any push questions, but simply asked, “Who would you most likely support in the Democratic party primary for United States Congress, if the choice was…” and then the two candidates’ names given in rotation.