Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate

We all know the DCCC has been busy working on their strategy of selections instead of elections to annoint DLC nominees, but maybe there could be a little more of a focus on fielding candidates, instead of squeezing them out.

The thing about the GOP Culture of Corruption is that it extends beyond swing districts. The question used to be what would happen if an unopposed congressman was hit with a major scandal after the filing deadline. It is no longer a hypothetical question:

Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) pushed for a provision in last year's transportation bill that allowed the city of Rialto, Calif., to shut down its airport.

By doing so, he paved the way for his business partner, Lewis Operating Corp., one of his top campaign contributors, to buy the land from the city and make plans to build Renaissance, a community consisting of 2,500 homes, parks and 80 acres of retail space on the former airport property and adjacent land.

Normally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has sole authority to close airports.

"This is the first time ... an airport has been closed through the legislative process," said FAA spokesman Hank Price. "We follow Congress's direction."

Unprecedented action to help Congressman Gary Miller's business partner. What did the FAA think?

But the FAA did not support closing Rialto airport. Since 1984, the city has taken out $15 million in federal government loans to improve the airport. Traditionally, the FAA opposes closing an airport when it has invested in it until it earns a return on the investment.

Sounds like a great scandal, too bad we don't have a candidate:

Before Lewis Operating joined with Hillwood on the Rialto project, Miller had not received any campaign contributions from Hillwood employees. But after Miller started working on language in the transportation bill, John Magness, senior vice president of Hillwood Investments, cut him a check for $500 dated May 12, 2005, according to Federal Election Commission records.

"I guess they were saying thank you. ... I guess that's what that was," Miller said.

That contribution like a good deal of Rep. Miller's will probably be re-directed to vulnerable Republicans since Miller doesn't have an opponent. Of course, there was no way the DCCC could have predicted a Culture of Corruption scandal in this district:

Watchdog groups have criticized a number of land deals between Lewis Operating and Miller, as well as his role in helping secure other provisions in last year's $286.5 billion transportation transportation bill.

As first reported by the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Miller helped secure $1.28 million in the bill for street improvements in front of a planned housing and retail center that he co-owned with Lewis Operating in his district.

Lewis-Diamond Bar LLC, a company formed to buy the land, is the developer. Miller owns $1 million-$5 million of the company. The other partner is Lewis Operating Corp.

The same year, Miller took out a promissory note from a subsidiary of Lewis Operating Corp., Lewis Investments, for $1 million to $5 million, according to his 2004 financial disclosure records.

Seriously, how could Rahm Emanuel have predicted that we might need a candidate in this race?

In July 2005, Fontana's redevelopment agency spent $5 million to buy land from Miller without notifying the public, an apparent violation of state open-meeting laws.

Miller said that he was outraged about it and that he has since demanded that the city insert a written pledge in the sales contract to make public the sale of the last parcel he owns to the city .

Some six months earlier, Miller had bought the same land from Lewis Operating. He said he did so to avoid tax penalties on profit from a land sale to Monrovia, another Southern California city, two years before.

That profit is estimated at $10 million, according to Miller's 2003 financial disclosure record and knowledgeable sources.

Whoops.



Display:


Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (3.00 / 1)

Oh well. I understand the DCCC was busy before the filing deadline trying to beat Cegelis, just like they were busy before Wilson's deadline try to squeeze Hackett.


by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:19:48 PM EST

NOt A Completely Fair Analysis (3.00 / 5)

I know the DCCC is a convenient wipping post here but the DCCC is not solely responsible for fielding candidates in every district.  They have limited resources and do their best to identify seats which are winnable.  It is an inexact science and it must be done in concert with local Democratic leaders.

Gary Miller is in one of the most Repub districts in the country and identifying a candidate to run in it should fall mainly to the local Dems.  In fact, I'd be worried if the DCCC were spending its limited resources finding a candidate in a heavily Repub seat like this one.  

The last time I remember a Repub or Dem winning in as lopsided a seat as Gary Miller's was 1994 when Dan Rostenkowski went down.  The local Rs found Fitzgerald, not the NRSC, but when it was clear it was winnable, national Repubs dumped money in and won.

That is why local Dem parties must also step to the plate to find candidates because periodically lightening does strike.


by John Mills on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:35:23 PM EST

uh (3.00 / 1)

Local Dems fielding a candidate is so un-Rahmbo.

Oh well, I'm sure a good number of vulnerable Republicans will love getting Miller's cash since he is unopposed.


by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, (none / 0)

Of course, there was no way the DCCC could have predicted a Culture of Corruption scandal in this district

Why not? It has a Republican incumbent, doesn't it? That ought to be enough to tip you off right there...

If we can field a full slate of candidates in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming (and we did), there is no excuse not to field them in each and every district in America.


by admiralnaismith on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:49:07 PM EST

Re: Whoops, (3.00 / 1)

I agree, but I understand they were busy in Illinois that week.


by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, (none / 0)

Well. Let me ask you something. This is perhaps one the most Republican districts in southern California. It represents some parts of Orange County that are 3-1 Republican. Yorba Linda, the hometown of Richard Nixon, is heavily Republican. On top of that it contains Diamond Bar, one of the few Republican strongholds in LA County. The precincts in San Bernadino County are just as hostile to the Democrats. So why on earth is any Democrat going to waste his or her time in a district like this?

Running office is very hard. It requires giving one's entire life for the better part of two years. It is grueling and stressful. It costs a lot of money too. And given the punishing demographics of this district, how many Democrats with the necessary statutre to make such a futile run (even remotely) competetive are willing to run a race with less than an even chance of winning? I would say very few. Most people would say, "I'm not going to waste my time."

That's why certain seats will always go unopposed or get little attention. That's why most Republicans will NEVER run for Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters's districts. Or conversely why no Democrat will EVER run for a seat like Eastern TN's first district, which has not elected a Democrat since 1860. The demographics are just too insurmountable.

It is a nice idea "to contest every seat", but it's kind of hard to expect someone to enter a race that has little to no (realistic) chance of winning. For that involves getting someone to actually run and put his/her life on hold, incur massive debt, and put a lot on the line for an effort that (most likely) will not be successful.

CA-42 is a seat that falls under that category. Unless lightening strikes the Democrats have more compelling opportunities elsewhere.


by jiacinto on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 05:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (3.00 / 1)

Well, it looks like all the hnow-it-alls, coffee shop coaches, armchair quarterbacks and other closet Republicans are back, ragging on the DCCC and Rep. Emanuel for not doing everything they demand and otherwise showing that talk a lot and don't know squat.
The truth of the matter is that it really isn't either national party's job to recruit candidates in safe districts. That's why many veteran legistaotrs on both sides of the aisle ususally end up with slugs for opposition.
Think you paranoid crybabies can figure that out?
by spirowasright on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:57:13 PM EST

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

You are old school, gotta respect that. There is nothing 50 state strategy about you, just keep on keeping on. Gotta stay the course, focus on a smaller universe of competitive districts and let Miller use all of his cash in those districts. Brilliant, no wonder it has been so successful.


by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

I live in NYC, am active politically and I can tell you for a fact the NRSC does not recruit candidates in the districts here.  The local parties find "slugs" to run in these safe districts.  It appears the Rs are better at finding these slugs in NYC than the Dems in CA are.

You cannot compare Gary Miller's safe seat with the competitive and open IL-06.  Regardless of the primary, the DCCC should be paying attention in a potentially winnable seat.  Prior to these revelations if the DCCC had been spending time in Gary Miller's seat, they would have been nuts.  

This is why we need to strengthen the local parties so everyone is opposed.  Realistically, the national committee's do not have the resources to find candidates in all 435 seats.  It must be done hand in hand with the people on the ground locally.


by John Mills on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:30:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

Well tell that to someone who actually has to make the sacrifice in a punishing district like that. It is nice to talk about "the fifty state strategy", but how are you going to actually convince people to make a tedious effort in seats that are just not competetive?


by jiacinto on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 05:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (3.00 / 3)

with all the vitriol being spat at the DCCC lately, I would have thought that any candidate they came up with would be tainted in the first place as being a beltway-insider-crony that was just a reflection of outsiders trying to meddle in an inherently local race.  Make up your minds.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:57:15 PM EST

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (3.00 / 1)

More democracy by recruiting more candidates is not the same thing as squeezing candidates because they aren't DLC members. More democracy is good, less bossing is good, CA-42 is bad.


by Bob Brigham on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

It would be bad business for the DCCC to recruit candidates it doesn't think can/will win.  If it were doing that, it would then have two bad choices with that candidate: spend money on a race/candidate it doesn't believe in or abandon the candidate after recruiting them into an ugly race.  In the former case, Dtrip gets blasted for poor allocation of resources. In the latter, it faces problems recruiting because nobody wants to go tilting at windmills without support from the people that got them into the race.

Either you want the DCCC to be recruiting candidates it thinks can win, and thus are willing to live with there not always being a candidate from the DCCC and the DCCC not thinking that every candidate is viable, or you want the DCCC to simply be playing an ancillary role for the grassroots in which the DCCC magically digs up a candidate after the local party utterly fails to find someone within its own community in which case I'd suggest we start contributing fairy dust rather than money to the DCCC.


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

Lucas - Agree 100%!


by John Mills on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (3.00 / 1)

So I guess the DCCC is also out of touch with the local and with the legislative dimensions of the Republican incumbent in District 42.  And those who make excuses for this egregious error will remain out of touch with the local dynamics of any House race in the United States.

I, of course, remain committed to the local dynamics of the races, but I am still concerned with the DCCC's lack of understanding with the dynamics on the ground in Illinois's sixth district.


by illinois062006 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:47:18 PM EST

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

The California state party should be recruiting heavily for all seats and heavily fundraising to make these challenges viable.  In addition, the New York and especially the California parties should be the 800 pound gorillas of national fundraising.  This should enable these two states to leverage their influence rather than be considered after thoughts as is currently the case.


by Demo Dan in Dayton on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:55:53 PM EST

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

NY Dem Party is returning to being a powerhouse but it has been a long rebuild after the destruction of the Cuomo years.  I don't know about CA.


by John Mills on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoops, maybe should have had a candidate (none / 0)

Well, we do now have a candidate (me), and I totally appreciate the information.

Please see my web page: http://MarkHRforCongress.net

Any and all help would be apprciated.  My name needs to be on the tip of every Democrat's pen in the 42nd.

Thanks!


mhr
by mhrichter on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 03:39:21 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.