The state’s primary system pushes the top two candidates into the general election, regardless of party. As it stands now, Republicans will likely be out of the running after next Tuesday when voters submit their ballots.

If Republicans could coalesce around one candidate, they’d have a shot at one candidate making the November runoff. Republican candidates account for 20 percent of the vote among likely voters, with Sanchez, of Santa Ana, polling at 14 percent. 

However, the five highest-polling Republican candidates are between three and four percent a piece, with each having little incentive to drop out in favor of another. And none of the Republican candidates are well known and have raised little money to increase their name ID.  

“Republicans probably wish that someone could clear the field and unite the party behind one candidate,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “But nobody has that power.” 

Harris leads with 30 percent, having the backing of the California Democratic Party. But a large percentage of respondents are undecided —  27 percent said they either hadn’t made up their minds or are not voting — meaning a lot can happen on Tuesday.

Top Two

The top-two system, approved by voters in 2010, theoretically favors more moderate candidates by removing partisan primaries.

While Sanchez is widely viewed as the more centrist candidate, as one of the few remaining members of the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Democrat coalition, Harris has nearly double the support among those who have declined to state a party preference, 16 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

But neither Harris nor Sanchez are polling well with Republicans, five percent and four percent, respectively. It’s unclear which way voters would lean after June, once the field narrows.

“It’s always a fallacy to extrapolate from a primary to tell what’ll happen in the general,” said Democratic strategist Garry South, who is not working with any of the candidates.

Voters want a dealmaker 

Another poll from last week showed 69 percent of voters prefer someone who “is willing to make compromises to get legislature passed over one who holds true to their beliefs without compromise.”

Despite her liberal philosophy and voting record, Boxer long ago mastered the art of legislating. Even at a time when Congress is getting little done, she managed to broker a deal last year on a highway bill with her ideological opposite, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

Harris does not have legislative experience for voters to draw from. Sanchez has run heavily on her reputation as a dealmaker, having made Congressional Quarterly’s recent list of the 25 most influential women in Washington, for being a “debate shaper and swing vote.”

With her legislative abilities, Sanchez changed how sexual assaults in the military are reported and tracked, thereby increasing accountability and consistently helped secure federal funding for Orange County’s groundwater replenishment system which provides water to millions of residents.

Yet the polls show voters still turning to Harris in larger numbers. South attributed this to Harris’ statewide name recognition, compared to Sanchez’s limited reach to mainly within her congressional district.

“She is a representative of one of the 53 seats in California, nobody knows her in the other 52,” South said, adding that a Democrat on Democrat race in the general could change the dynamic. 

Republicans

Arguably the two most well-known Republicans in the race are two former state party chairmen, Tom Del Beccaro and Duf Sundheim. Ron Unz, who ran for governor against fellow Republican Governor Pete Wilson and is an outspoken critic of bilingual education, seemed to raise his profile substantially during the two debates.

None of the three have raised enough money to compete though. Sundheim has raised $621,000, Del Beccaro has raised $365,000 and Unz has raised almost $52,000. All of that is nominal compared to Harris, who has raised almost $10 million, and Sanchez, who has raised $3.5 million.  

In a state with several expensive media markets and without any noteworthy amount of name ID, the financial shortcomings of the Republican candidates is holding them back.

“Nobody knows who any of them are and none have two nickles to rub together,” said South.

Particularly for a seat that’s rated “Safe Democrat” by The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, Republican donors will largely look to spend money elsewhere on more competitive races. 

“Even if they could get a GOP candidate into the top two, that person would still lose the general election,” said Pitney. “The GOP leadership has to focus its very scarce resources on races it might win.”

Unlike the House, where the strength is in building coalitions, individual senators have a lot of power — the place runs almost entirely on unanimous consent. Personal relationships matter and senators don’t respect those they don’t respect or those who can’t keep their promises.

Especially in an increasingly partisan world, the ability to make friends across the aisle is key in the Senate. For example, Boxer was successful on transportation legislation because she was able to find common ground with Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., with whom she disagreed with on almost everything else.

“Relationships are very important in a Senate that runs on consensus,” said Jim Manley, former spokesman for Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Sanchez, an Orange County congresswoman, is running against fellow Democrat Kamala Harris, the state Attorney General and frontrunner in both polling and fundraising, as well as two former state Republican party chairs, Duf Sundheim and Tom Del Beccaro.

Harris, Sundheim and Del Beccaro all lack prior legislative experience. Sanchez says she’s the only candidate who is “ready to hit the ground running on Day 1.” While her time in the House would give her a structural advantage (if elected) over other freshman, the issues any of them would be able to fight for would be largely determined by their committee assignments.

Committee Assignments

The Senate as an institution puts a lot of value in seniority — it’s how committee assignments and office space are doled out. It used to be culturally important too, when new senators were expected to stay quiet and learn for a year, although that’s waning in modern times.

Committees are where senators do the vast majority of their work. Bills usually go through committee before heading to the floor. So senators need to either usher their bills through committee themselves or have someone who sits on the committee usher it through for them.

While candidates talk about what they’ll do when they get to Washington, it really comes down to what committees they are assigned to. In fact, instead of going to Washington to change the world and push a laundry list of party priorities — as candidates often talk about on the campaign trail — the first few years are spent getting on the good side of their committee chairs and ranking members, rising in seniority, gaining clout by cosponsoring bills and working with others, becoming an expert in a policy and then finally starting to move legislation through committee.

The leadership determines assignments. Senators will request what committees they want to be assigned to, but the caucus leadership will decide assignments based on expertise and need.

Manley said that Reid, who is retiring, used to spend a great deal of time post-election working with the new senators to fill spots based on where the vacancies were, making sure committees were adequately represented by the different regions of the country, and of course taking into consideration what the new members want — although there were no guarantees.

Senators usually serve on at least three committees, and prior experience is a factor. There’s a good chance that a state attorney general like Harris would be assigned to the Judiciary Committee. And there’s a good chance Sanchez would be assigned to Armed Services or Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committees, since she currently serves on similar committees in the House.

With Boxer leaving, there will be an opening on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is a prime spot for a Californian as this committee has jurisdiction over roads and environmental policy. So a Californian could make the case for this assignment based on regional representation. And a nod from Boxer could help too.

Boxer will also leave an opening on the Foreign Relations Committee, where senators can boost their foreign policy credentials — a nice launch pad for a presidential run, if any of them feel so inclined (as the saying goes: every senator sees a future president when they look in the mirror).

Former or current members of Foreign Relations are: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

History

In the old days, the motto was freshman should be seen and not heard. In fact, the maiden speech was a big deal — freshman wouldn’t speak on the floor for a year.

The tradition has eroded over the years. In 2015, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., waited just a few months into his term to deliver his maiden speech. And Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., made news by actually waiting a year — the only freshman in a class of 13 to do so.

How will experience help?

Besides Sanchez, none of the top candidates have legislative experience. But, according to Manley, Harris’ time as AG gives her other experience, like running a large department and being decisive.

Structurally, Sanchez’s 19 years in the House gives her an advantage over other freshman, since multiple senators are sworn in on the same day. Ties in seniority need to be broken somehow.

Priority is given to former senators, then former members of the House, then former presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members and governors. If none of those apply, then it falls on population of the state. And if that doesn’t work, it goes by alphabetical order.

Sanchez has served with many current senators over the years, since many were elected out of the House. She’s also served on conference committees (when the two chambers come together to work out the differences between the House version of a bill and the Senate version). She’s also served on the Joint Economic Committee, which has members of both chambers on it.

But her experience and existing relationships alone may not get her more respect on the other side of the Capitol. Sanchez would have to prove herself just like the others.

“You either demonstrate you have the chops or not,” said Manley.

Read more: “Sanchez: Don’t Touch the Filibuster“

Villaraigosa announced his decision Tuesday in a post on Facebook that foreshadowed a run for governor in 2018.

“I am humbled by the encouragement I’ve received from so many to serve in the United States Senate,” the former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly wrote. “But as I think about how best to serve the people of this great state, I know that my heart and my family are here in California, not Washington, D.C.”

If Villaraigosa’s statement that his heart remains “here in California” wasn’t a clear enough indication of a future run for governor, he added he’ll continue his “efforts to make California a better place to live, work and raise a family.”

“We have come a long way, but our work is not done, and neither am I,” he concluded.

Kamala Harris

Villaraigosa’s decision to pass on an application for membership in “the world’s most exclusive club” follows similar announcements by Treasurer John Chiang, billionaire climate-change activist Tom Steyer and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

It didn’t take long for Harris, the only major announced Democratic candidate, to issue a statement praising the former Los Angeles mayor.

“The city of Los Angeles, and our state and nation, have benefitted [sic] greatly from his leadership,” Harris said in a prepared statement tweeted by her campaign. “I know he has much more to offer. I wish him and his family all the best.”

Although Harris welcomed Villaraigosa’s exit from the race, the biggest beneficiary could be Loretta Sanchez. A moderate Orange County Democrat, Sanchez would have appealed to similar voters — Latinos and Southern Californians — as Villaraigosa.

Sanchez may prove formidable challenger to Harris

She hasn’t received the same media hype as Villaraigosa, but in some respects Sanchez may prove to be a more formidable challenger to Harris. The 10-term Democrat has said she’ll make a decision later this year. Sanchez has a head start on fundraising with nearly $400,000 in federal cash on hand, according to the most recent campaign finance reports.

Her statewide name identification, albeit lower than Villaraigosa’s, comes without the personal baggage. Early in his tenure as mayor, Villaraigosa disclosed an affair with a Telemundo newswoman. That was followed by photos showing the mayor partying with Hollywood bad boy Charlie Sheen at a hotel opening in Mexico.

But as pointed out by CalWatchdog.com, the biggest weight on a Villaraigosa campaign could be his support for Esteban Nunez, the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Esteban pled guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of a 22-year-old college student. Villaraigosa, on official mayoral letterhead, wrote a letter of support for “a young man of good and upright character.”

The case was riddled with political favoritism, as detailed in a lengthy profile by the Los Angeles Times, and ended with Nunez friend Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s commutation of Esteban’s sentence.

Latino Caucus: Senate contest bigger than any one candidate

Villaraigosa’s decision to pass on the race also does nothing to cool the burning frustrations of Latino political leaders, who are being pressured by some Democratic leaders to clear the field for Harris.

Earlier this year, former Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, who at one time dated Harris, said Villaraigosa should forgo a campaign out of respect for his friendship with the attorney general.

“His loyalty and his relationship with her should be so valuable, and he should, in my opinion, see it as an opportunity to demonstrate that,” Brown told the Sacramento Bee.

That comment inspired grumblings from members of the California Latino Caucus, who say the race is bigger than any one Latino candidate. Earlier this month, the group released a poll showing a Latino candidate could contend with Harris. The survey of 600 likely Latino voters, according to CalBuzz, showed Villaraigosa leading Harris, with Sanchez not far behind in third place.

“The U.S. Senate race has importance beyond the contestants themselves,” Assemblywoman Nora Campos, D-San Jose, said in a press release. “This is not about one candidate or another. An exciting race can generate enthusiasm among voters that have not been energized in years.”

Other Democratic candidates that are considering the race include Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank, Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles and former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera.

On the Republican side, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Carlsbad and former California Republican Party chairman Tom Del Beccaro are seriously exploring bids.

The 2016 election, according to the Associated Press, will be “a free-for-all among a new generation of California Democrats.” With the help of California’s Top 2 Primary, California Republicans even have an outside chance of capitalizing on that anticipated Democratic free-for-all. If multiple Democrats split the primary vote, two Republicans could make the runoff and win the seat that’s been held by Boxer for two decades.

That very long-shot nearly happened in the 2014 race for state controller. Democrats Betty Yee and Speaker of the Assembly John Perez nearly lost out to Republicans David Evans and Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin. After finishing second to Swearengin in June, Yee ultimately won in November.

Democrats confident in diverse bench

As CalWatchdog.com reported yesterday, “Boxer’s retirement is the beginning of the changing of the guard in state politics.” California Democrats’ oldest guard, party Chairman John Burton, 82, confidently predicted Democrats would hold the seat in 2016.

“As difficult as it is to imagine California without Barbara Boxer looking out for us in the U.S. Senate, we’re confident California Democrats will have plenty to choose from when it comes to electing their next U.S. Senator,” Burton, an old San Francisco liberal, said in a statement.

So, who are those Democrats ready to take over as Boxer’s successor? Possibly the strongest candidate is one of her former staff members, a man who has gone on to have a successful political career in his own right.

Treasurer John Chiang leads field of potential challengers

On paper, State Treasurer John Chiang, who worked for Boxer early in his career, might be the strongest candidate to succeed her in 2016.

“Senator Boxer has been a stalwart champion for environmental, social, and economic justice,” Chiang said in a statement. “It was an honor to work with Senator Boxer, and I wish her the very best.”

Chiang, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, doesn’t get top billing from political insiders, in part, because he’s been willing to buck the Capitol establishment. When state lawmakers failed to pass a balanced budget on time in 2011, Chiang withheld their paychecks, a move that was heralded by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. As state controller, he also opened up the state’s books by publishing payroll data for hundreds of thousands of public employees.

Those decisive actions have helped Chiang appeal to moderate Republicans and independent voters. It also explains why he received the most votes in the November election after Gov. Jerry Brown. In 2014, Chiang raised more money than either Attorney General Kamala Harris or Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, both of whom receive more hype as Boxer’s potential successor.

Do Harris, Newsom have a pact?

The first names mentioned by the inside-the-Beltway crowd, Harris and Newsom, are sending signals that they won’t run against each other for Boxer’s seat. The two constitutional officers, who share political consultants, SCN Strategies, put their unity on full display earlier this week. Newsom was sworn in for his second term as lieutenant governor by “his good friend” Harris.

Of the two, Harris is expected to run for U.S. Senate, giving Newsom a clear path to governor in 2018. That’s subtly reinforced by their campaign websites. There’s no mention of the AG’s office on Harris’ campaign homepage, KamalaHarris.org, while Newsom’s still mentions he’s lieutenant governor.

But Harris could run into trouble in her campaign for U.S. Senate. Although she cruised to reelection in 2014, she had a competitive race in 2010, when she narrowly defeated Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. After leading in the polls, Cooley plummeted when he publicly admitted that he’d “double dip,” collecting a pension and his paycheck.

Steyer, Villaraigosa also formidable challengers

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, another strong contender, is sending mixed signals about his interest in the race. Bloomberg’s Jonathan Allen reported the 61-year-old Democrat is “seriously considering” a run.

But according to the Wall Street Journal, “A person close to Mr. Villaraigosa said a Senate campaign was unlikely for the former mayor. ‘The only seat he cares about is running for governor. He has been a legislator and he’s been an executive, and if he wanted to continue his political career, it would only be as an executive,’ the person said.”

Another Democrat playing it coy is billionaire Tom Steyer. In the 2014 midterm elections, Steyer’s Next Gen Climate PAC spent $74 million on liberal candidates. Politico reported last month that liberal activists at a League of Conservation Voters event in New York City were encouraging Steyer to consider a U.S. Senate campaign. “Tom has consistently said that he will consider the best ways to have the biggest impact,” Chris Lehane, Steyer’s political consultant, wrote in an email to Politico.

GOP candidates: Sundheim, Del Beccaro

Among the first Republicans to react to Boxer’s retirement news was San Diego County Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric.

“Being a far left Senator, Barbara Boxer never met a tax increase, regulation, or intrusion on personal freedom she didn’t support,” said Krvaric, one of the state’s most successful GOP party leaders. “Californians deserve a Senator who understands the needs of the average citizen — not out-of-touch San Francisco elites.”

That, at least momentarily, signaled the possibility that California’s top Republican official, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, might be considering the race. However, Faulconer quickly said he wasn’t interested. Other Republicans who’ve thrown cold water on a bid: former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Rep. Darrell Issa.

That leaves two former chairmen of the California Republican Party as the only Republicans who are exploring bids: Tom Del Beccaro, a Bay Area author and attorney who served as CA GOP chairman from 2011 to 2013; and Duf Sundheim, another Bay Area lawyer who served as party chairman from 2003–2007.

“If I did run, I would run a very different campaign,” Sundheim said in a statement announcing his intent to explore the race. “What I am exploring is whether such a campaign is viable.  My plan is to go around the state, listen to the dreams people have for themselves, their family and their community and then decide.”

Other potential candidates include Democrat Steve Westly, a former California state controller; and Republicans Neel Kashkari, who lost to Brown for governor last year; Meg Whitman, the Hewlett-Packard CEO who lost to Brown in 2010; and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed sources close to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, a Democrat, said she isn’t interested in running.

By John Hrabe

SACRAMENTO — Meeting in the state capital this weekend for its spring convention, the California Republican Party is deep in the red. The party’s debt problems are so bad it’s not even clear how much money it owes creditors.

The Sacramento Bee reported the tab could be as high as $800,000. One state party officer told CalWatchDog.com on Friday afternoon, “The number is probably closer to half a million, when it’s all said and done.”

It could take incoming state Republican chairman Jim Brulte months to get the party into the black. Or the party’s financial problems could be resolved with as few as four phone calls to longtime Republican officials who currently sit on millions of dollars in active campaign committees.

Will quartet come to their party’s aid?

Four former Republican members of Congress — Wally Herger, Elton Gallegly, David Dreier and Jerry Lewis — retain more than $2.2 million in combined cash on hand in federal campaign accounts. Federal campaign finance rules allow retired members of Congress to make unlimited transfers to state party committees. Pegging the party’s debt at a half-million dollars, the party could resolve its financial problems with as little as 22 percent of the retired members’ reported cash on hand, still leaving them with more than $1 million to spend as they see fit.

“After decades of serving the people of California and the Republican Party, this is a splendid opportunity for them to generously give back — to help revive the California Republican Party,” said Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committee representative. “I have no doubt, in terms of their political legacy, they’ll want to make one final contribution to the state party.”

Retiring members of Congress are eligible to make “unlimited transfers to any national, state or local political party committee,” according to the Federal Election Commission’s Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees, published in August 2011.

California’s outgoing Republican chairman, Tom Del Beccaro, told reporters on Saturday that he has been frustrated by the congressional delegation’s lack of financial support and believes that the four recently retired members of Congress should help alleviate the party’s debts.

At a Saturday morning press conference, when asked whether the retired members should aid the party, Del Beccaro answered simply, “Yes and yes.”

“Jim Brulte will be a better chairman when it comes to those types of things,” he added.

Few federal limits on ex-lawmakers’ use of leftover campaign cash

Within the first six months of a candidate leaving office, congressional committees are authorized to use their campaign committees to pay for “the costs of winding down the office of a former federal officeholder,” which can include moving expenses, payments to committee staff and gifts to individuals. If funds remain after six months, federal officeholders are eligible to make unlimited contributions to political parties and charitable organizations as well as contribute to state and local candidates, pursuant to state law. About the only restriction on federal officeholders: no expenditures for personal use.

Lewis, frequently described as “one of California’s most powerful Republicans,” ended his 34 years in Washington with $856,407 in the bank.

Dreier, who was recently appointed chairman of the Annenberg-Dreier Commission at Sunnylands after 32 years in Congress, has nearly $750,000 in his congressional account.

Gallegly, who represented Ventura County for 12 terms, retired with just shy of $600,000 in cash on hand.

Herger, who represented Northern California’s 2nd congressional district for 13 terms, maintains the lowest cash on hand, a little more than $82,000.

State party Treasurer Mike Osborn said the party could use the help.

“All our party members have future plans,” said Osborn, who is seeking reelection to his post. “It would be much appreciated if they could find a way to help the party.”

The former congressmen have yet to embrace the idea of bailing out the state party. Last July, a spokesman for Lewis told CalWatchDog.com that the congressman was still considering his options. “He has not made any final decisions on the distribution of his campaign account at this point,” said Jim Specht, then Lewis’ deputy chief of staff.

A spokesman for Gallegly told CalWatchDog.com last summer that the congressman was considering his options, which was affirmed in January.

“We’re working very closely with the [Federal Election Commission] to make sure what we do is appropriate and make sure that when the final decision is made, it’s going to be one that can best serve the community,” Gallegly told his hometown paper,  the Ventura County Star.

No new campaigns seen for ex-congressmen

It’s unlikely that any of the four congressional retirees would run for another office. All four retired from Congress in 2012 rather than face tough reelections in new district’s created through the state’s decennial redistricting process.

Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Jesse Petrilla, a Republican candidate in the 73rd Assembly District, believes that the retired members of Congress should contribute to the party’s debt along with everyone else in the state party.

“They should chip in whatever they can,” said Petrilla, who serves as a convention delegate. “But we’re going to need support from more than just a few individuals. We need everyone to reach into their pockets and dig deep.”

On Sunday, party delegates will consider a resolution proposed by Republican delegate and activist Carl Burton that would thank all retiring Republican members of Congress, including the four members, “for their service to citizens of California and to the United States of America.”

Noticeably absent from the resolution: any mention of their service to the California Republican Party.

Katy Grimes: This is the most partisan election I’ve seen since I first voted in 1980. But there is a reason, and one apparently rooted in American history.

A telling example of the partisanship along with much irony can be found in the Proposition 32 campaign.

Prop. 32, the ballot initiative which would ban automatic payroll deductions from employee paychecks by labor unions, has been a brutal campaign. The “No” on Prop. 32 camp has run the most dishonest campaign and ads which have nothing to do with the actual proposition.

“The campaign for Prop 32 is spending tens of millions of dollars from shady Super PACs, oil billionaires, and radical conservatives,” the “No” on Prop. 32 campaign says. Yet the opposition to the proposition – labor unions, public employee unions, liberals and Democratic politicians – have spent more than $73 million to defeat the initiative.

Yet is is very well known and widely acknowledged that the massive labor unions,  public employee unions, large corporations, and a few very wealthy individuals, dominate the agenda of California’s government, and control Democratic politicians.

If these groups had to raise funds through voluntary contributions and donations, they’d starve.

Donors to “No” on Prop. 32

According to Ballotpedia, “this is a list of the $100,000 and over donors to the ‘no’ campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:”

A divided nation

“The intensity of our divisions increased significantly under President Obama,”  said Tom Del Beccaro, the Chairman of the California Republican Party, in an interview today.

Del Beccaro is writing a book about what he calls “The Divided Era.” He explained that American partisanship has so significantly increased because the way we govern ourselves has also changed.  “So much so, that today our system of government and the parties that practice it, are rather more like our English counterparts – a development that would  horrify our Founders,” Del Beccero said.

England has no Constitution, so every election is of the utmost importance, according to Del Beccaro. And England has very good voter turnout because the stakes are so high.

American elections have traditionally had lower turnout. We’ve had an ironclad Constitution to rely on for the rule of law. However, that has changed significantly since President Obama’s election in 2008.

How has President Barack Obama violated the Constitution?

*Obama appointed “Czars” without Senate approval.

*He pushed through Obamacare, to force Americans to buy health insurance.

*He has violated religious freedom by allowing the Health and Human Services agency to force Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions to perform abortions, sterilizations and prescribe contraceptives.

* Obama made illegal appointments by bypassing the Senate during recess.

* He has used the EPA to attack the energy industry.

* Obama has violated voting rights and equal protection when he allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to dismiss the Black Panther voter intimidation case. And there are reports that they are back again today in Philadelphia, intimidating voters.

The list is long, and includes many more violations.

“Without a limiting Constitution, dramatic changes can occur in the wake of any one British election,” Del Beccaro said. “Entire industries or their parts can be nationalized and have been.”

“Here at home, for most of our history, our limiting Constitution produced a decentralized form of government,” according to Del Beccaro. “The growth in our government the last forty years have increased the stakes – and the changes of the past four years, in particular, have changed our system. Obamacare and the Supreme Court case that upheld it did that for us – not to mention the use of the government imposed “solution” on GM, our Solyndra industrial green energy policy, Czars, executive orders and Obama’s outright failure to abide by the rule of law.”

Del Beccaro said that the division and partisanship will only get worse. Because the stakes are so high, “people, businesses, and unions now must be engaged and be more partisan, either through voting or lobbying because they are competing as much in the halls of Congress as the market place.”

By Dave Roberts

In California, there are three certainties: death, taxes and the re-election of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In 2006, she shellacked Dick Mountjoy by 24 points. In 2000, she trounced Tom Campbell by 19 points.

The grande doyenne of California Democrats has been in the Senate for 20 years and will turn 79 next month. She’s up for re-election and, short of serious illness or death, it’s likely she’ll still be in the Senate when she’s 85 and 91 if she wants.

So it’s not exactly a shock that prominent Republican congressmen like Darrell Issa, David Dreier and Dan Lungren have chosen to sit this one out. That has left the field of challengers to 14 Republicans, five Democrats and four minor party candidates — all of whom have zero to little electoral experience or name recognition. In a crowded field of nobodies, getting their party’s endorsement provides an advantage in winning the second spot in the new top-two primary system and its ticket to the general election in November.

The top two system was instituted by Proposition 14 in 2010.  Under it, the top two winners of June 5 primary will face off in November. No other candidates for U.S. Senate will be on the ballot. Assuming Feinstein is the top vote getter, that means just one other person will face her on the ballot, likely a Republican. Third party candidates will be shut out.

The function of the political parties has been reduced to official endorsements.

In March, the California Republican Party endorsed more than 100 candidates for a variety of offices, including for the U.S. Senate. “As the party prepares to be a vigorous contender in California’s first top two primary, we seek to promote the most competitive candidates in the field this primary season,” said Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro in the press release announcing the endorsed candidates.

Elizabeth Emken won the GOP nod as the most competitive candidate to face Feinstein. However, the Danville autism advocate’s only electoral experience is finishing fourth out of four candidates in the 2010 Republican primary in Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney’s district. Emken received 16.7 percent of the vote. In a district that winds through four counties, Emken didn’t even win her own Contra Costa County, finishing second, just 270 votes ahead of the third-place finisher.

Such a poor showing might be understandable if a candidate were running a token campaign, placing her name in contention for publicity’s sake but doing little campaigning. But Emken ran full out in 2010, spending $456,404 — more than $200,000 of it from her own pocket. That equates to $40 per vote. At that rate Emken would need to raise more than $200 million to best the more than 5 million votes Feinstein gathered in 2006. As of March 31, Emken had raised just more than $300,000. Feinstein’s campaign treasury had more than $7 million on hand.

‘Most competitive candidate’?

So what makes Emken the “most competitive candidate” in the eyes of state GOP officials? One factor is that her senior communications advisor is Mark Standriff, who in January left his position after two years as communications director for the California Republican Party. “Mark has been a tireless member of our senior staff and dedicated himself to improving the CRP’s communications efforts by helping me reach more voters in more corners of our state,” California GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said in a statement upon Standriff’s departure.

In an email interview, I asked Jennifer Kerns, who replaced Standriff as the California GOP communications director, whether it was helpful for Emken in getting the endorsement to have Standriff on her staff. Kerns did not address the question, saying simply, “He was free to consult with any campaign once he departed the CRP.”

Said Standriff in a phone interview, “The only thing it helped is that I am a professional communications director and somebody who has worked on campaigns for years and was able to put together a comprehensive package. I contacted no board members. Frankly, I wish I had that kind of power.”

Standriff said Emken’s experience two years ago in one district’s partisan Republican primary is not relevant to today’s statewide, top-two primary.

“You have to take everything that happened pre-Prop. 14 and throw it out the window,” he said. “All of these other candidates seem to think this is still a partisan primary, and it’s not. It’s open to everybody. That’s why you will see 24 different names on the ballot. So the Republican Party said, ‘Who do we think is the most electable, who has the best chance to get through June 5th and take on Dianne Feinstein?’ Everybody had the chance to present their financial package and show how much money they will be able to raise and present their positions. She’s the only one who has ever gone to Washington D.C. and stood up and said, ‘Enough is enough.’ And that’s a big thing.”

Kerns said Emken’s experience as an autism lobbyist was a major factor in her endorsement.

That was echoed by Jeff Corless, Emken’s campaign manager. He said, “She, unlike the rest of the candidates, not only has business experience and experience helping those truly in need, but also understands the legislative process from day one when she goes back to the Senate, because of her experience in advocacy for autism.”

Endorsement process

Perhaps it’s a case of sour grapes, but several Republican candidates who did not get the endorsement or chose not to participate in the endorsement process, with its $500 buy-in for consideration, have harsh words for the way things went down.

“I believe the Republican Party has committed fraud in its endorsement of Elizabeth Emken by doing so without providing an opportunity for all candidates to be heard,” said Dennis Jackson, an aerospace general manager from Rancho Cucamonga. “Due to the open primary, there were no party debates or any type of debate that was televised.

“I have been a voting Republican since 1968 and would destroy Elizabeth Emken in a debate or in a comparison of backgrounds that would best serve this nation. However, I was never contacted by the Republican Party about any meeting to review my candidacy, policies or background. In making the endorsement in such a manner, the party is playing king-maker and insulting the intelligence of the voters as well as attempting to silence the voice of the candidates that they never even took the time to meet. The party politics seem more in line with the Bolsheviks than the Founding Fathers.”

Disappointment

Also ticked off in Rancho Cucamonga is MBA student Dirk Allen Konopik, who said, “The California Republican Party’s leadership, to include Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, has been a constant disappointment; from their continuous failure to support viable candidates, to the unethical decision to charge U.S. Senate candidates $500 just to consider them for the CRP endorsement. I chose not to pay. It is now very clear to me, after ramping up our U.S. Senate campaign since January 2011, why the Democratic Party controls California. It’s because the CRP is inefficient, ineffective and corrupt. In my opinion, I would rather have the California Federation of Republican Women lead the CRP.”

Also critical is Orly Taitz, the Laguna Niguel attorney who has become known for challenging President Obama’s citizenship.

“The nomination process was a complete fraud, and a number of the candidates are considering suing the corrupt 24 board members,” said Taitz. “Two candidates … talked to the Chair of the Board Tom Del Beccarro and another board member, who told them that the meeting and discussion was just a formality, the decision was already made. So, the Board has collected several thousand dollars from candidates under false pretenses. They used this money to have a nice weekend at a nice hotel and announced the predetermined decision. They defrauded the candidates and the voters.”

Another unhappy candidate is Rick Williams, a Los Angeles attorney.

“I believe the California Republican Party acted improperly by engaging in a process to endorse one candidate in the United States Senate race from a field of 14 good Republicans running for the seat,” he said. “I declined to participate in their disgraceful process. I realized it was a sham and wanted nothing to do with it. The decision as to which candidate should represent the Republican Party against Dianne Feinstein is for voters to make — not a tiny group of insider political operatives at the state party who were trying to tilt the playing field.”

Nachum Shifren, a Santa Monica rabbi, believes the state party snub of his campaign may be an asset: “My chances are helped, since the GOP mafia and good ol’ boys club will never nominate or support a true conservative that threatens the status quo,” he said. “I am having success in precisely distinguishing myself from the other RINO candidates and those that simply won’t take on the difficult issues.”

Kerns dismissed the criticism of the endorsement process, saying, “We provided every candidate the opportunity to be heard, in writing, by phone, and in person. This was to ensure the fairest process.”

If party officials had decided to base their endorsement on the candidate with the best electoral experience, they would have chosen Greg Conlon, a Burlingame CPA.

“I probably have the best chance because I ran statewide in 2002 for state treasurer and received over one million votes in the primary and three million votes in the general election against Phil Angelides, an incumbent,” said Conlon. “Therefore, even though it was 10 years ago, some will remember the name and vote for me now.”

The GOP endorsement may ultimately be irrelevant to the outcome of this year’s election. It’s likely that whoever wins the primary from among the 14 largely unknown and inexperienced Republican candidates will become a sacrificial lamb led to the Feinstein slaughter in November.

By JOHN HRABE

Back to the campaign drawing board for California Republicans.

The California Supreme Court recently upheld the maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

The immediate fallout: State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, told his hometown paper that he wouldn’t seek reelection, due to the unfavorable maps approved by the court. In another swing seat, Republicans have yet even to field a candidate. State Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection in order to run for a new seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Republicans lose both state Senate seats, their Senate caucus will be reduced to fewer than 14 members, the all-important two-thirds threshold that gives Republicans the ability to block tax increases. At 13 Republican and 27 Democratic state senators, Democrats in the Senate could vote to impose infinite tax increases.

“It’s going to be seriously difficult for Republicans to stay above one-third in the Senate because of this,” California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro complained to the Mercury News. “It puts the two-party system in the Senate in jeopardy.”

$2.1 Million Dollars for Useless Referendum

Republicans can now put a cost on their defeat: $2.1 million.

According to its fourth quarter campaign finance report, the Republican group Fairness & Accountability in Redistricting spent a whopping $2.1 million on its effort to put the new state Senate maps to a vote in November. The committee collected $1.7 million, or 80 percent, of its funding from the California Republican Party. That’s money that a cash-depleted party could have invested into voter registration programs for the three competitive state Senate districts.

“The CRP already spent a few million dollars on the referendum and varied lawsuit, all this while one of their best senate candidates, Jeff Miller, has no million-dollar voter registration program and can’t even afford a new URL,” observed the January 30th Redistricting Partners newsletter.

But it didn’t have to end this way for Golden State Republicans. Not if they’d followed the old maxim: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Lesson One: Research redistricting commissioners and use legislative strikes wisely.

Propositions 11 and 20 gave legislative leaders of both parties the power to strike up to two names from the final applicant subpool of redistricting commissioners. Republican leaders could have spent a few thousand dollars on opposition research reports on the backgrounds of redistricting commissioners. Or they could have spent just a few hours cross-checking applicants against the state’s campaign finance database. Had anyone at the California Republican Party done a few hours of research, they’d have discovered several campaign contributions by two commissioners.

Back in July 2011, CalWatchDog.com first reported on two redistricting commissioners’ partisan histories and campaign contributions. Commissioner Jeanne Raya failed to disclose four contributions totaling $1,000 made on behalf of her business to a state political action committee.  State law requires commissioners to disclose any civic, political or charitable donations of $250 or more.

Commissioner Gabino Aguirre made three campaign donations to Democratic candidates for state office. In November 2008, Aguirre contributed $100 to Ferial Masry, the Democratic nominee for the 37th State Assembly District. A year later, he made a $200 contribution to Gloria Romero, a former Democratic state senator. Aguirre also has extensive ties to a redistricting special interest group, the Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy (CAUSE). The progressive social justice organization submitted its own redistricting maps for the Central Coast. It’s no coincidence that Blakeslee and Strickland’s seats, which are now likely to flip to the Democrats, are both on the Central Coast.

With just a little bit of research, Republicans could have made an educated decision to strike Raya and Aguirre. But Republican legislative leaders didn’t want to spend the money. One high-level staffer described Republican legislative leaders’ approach to the redistricting process as “an inexcusable reluctance to spend the resources to research the background of the commissioners.” Another senior staff member for a Republican legislator put it simply, “The truth is we’re idiots.”

While neither staffer wanted to be identified by name, one Republican political consultant openly defied party leadership in an attempt to save the GOP from itself.

“When you start the process telling people not to be involved and then end the process complaining that others were too involved, you have created your own emergency,” wrote Matt Rexroad, a partner with Meridian Pacific, in his rant for Capitol Weekly. “The issue that really galls me is that Republicans can cry foul all they want, but legislative leadership made it very clear that they did not want any Republican consultants to engage on redistricting.”

Lesson Two: Focus on the flawed process, not self-interested outcomes.

If they had been consistent in their objections, Republicans could have convinced the public that the redistricting process was flawed.

Republicans were right: the redistricting process was corrupted by special interest groups. Background research could have helped expose Aguirre, but the full extent of his partisan activities couldn’t have been fully brought to light in time for the legislative strikes.  That’s because Aguirre’s last and most egregious contribution, a $100 check to Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams, posted to the Secretary of State’s website nine days after the Bureau of State Audits completed its background check.

Williams had a vested interest in redistricting. Yet the commission took no action to disclose this potential conflict of interest or sequester Aguirre from Williams’ region. They did the opposite. Aguirre was put in charge of overseeing the Central Coast mapmaking.  He promptly adopted the maps suggested by his friends at CAUSE.

Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, who have been highly-critical of the Republicans’ redistricting referendum, questioned the cause of Willliams’ redistricting good fortune. “When you look at Williams’ new 37th Assembly district, which is about as safe for him as can be, along with the new 19th SD, the future of the hyper-ambitious young pol looks bright indeed, whether he sits still for two more, two-year terms in the Assembly, or jumps into a 2012 race that could bring two four-year terms in the senate. Coincidence? You be judge,” the CalBuzz team wrote back in August.

Republicans didn’t concentrate on this message, in part, because they liked the configuration of the State Assembly maps. They also ignored the Voting Rights Act violations with the congressional maps because those were favorable to high-ranking House Republicans. Instead, Republicans voluntarily swapped a message about the flawed process for a pity-party about losing one-third control of the State Senate.

Lesson Three: Don’t look a gift commissioner in the mouth.

Redistricting Commissioner Mike Ward, an Orange County chiropractor with no prior involvement in state politics, demonstrated a more coherent message than Republican political pros.

“The Citizens Redistricting Commission has certified maps that are fundamentally flawed as a result of a tainted political process,” Ward said at the commission’s August 15 press conference. “This commission simply traded the partisan, backroom gerrymandering by the Legislature, for partisan, backroom gerrymandering by average citizens.”

Then Ward did what you’re supposed to do when you object to a corrupted process: he voted against all of the proposed maps. He didn’t cherry-pick maps based on those that would help his political party. The Senate referendum quashed Ward’s message about the flawed process. If the process was corrupted, why only challenge one set of four maps? Republicans’ inconsistent message impressed upon the press, public and ultimately the State Supreme Court that the referendum was motivated by partisan interests.

Lesson Four: Courts are influenced by public opinion.

Republicans’ last error with its redistricting message came with the referendum lawsuit. Republicans turned the lawsuit into a legal argument about the rule of law, the right to referendum and the will of the voters.

“In the law, the word ‘stay’ has a clear meaning. To ‘stay’ an action means to stop that action. The most authoritative legal dictionary of American law defines ‘stay’ as, ‘To stop, arrest, forbear.’ To ‘stay’ an order or decree means to hold it in abeyance, or refrain from enforcing it.” Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1267 (5th ed. 1979).

Assemblyman Don Wagner wrote in the Flash Report, “Thus, because the petition is ‘likely to qualify,’ the Supreme Court was directed by the Constitution to ‘refrain from enforcing’ the Commission’s Senate maps. In short, the California Constitution, with a simple, four letter word of indisputable meaning, stays or stops the use of the Commission lines until the people have their say on those lines at the ballot box.”

Legally, Wagner may be right. But, who cares? Not even the Supreme Court cared about legal precedents or Black’s Law Dictionary when public opinion stood on the other side.

Said the court’s unanimous opinion, “The Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI.” In other words, the Court was influenced by press accounts and public opinion when deciding what to do with the redistricting mess.

In their stories about the court decision, neither the Los Angeles Times nor Sacramento Bee included a word about the corrupted process. Mike Ward was left out completely.

By the end of the redistricting scandal, Republicans had so badly muddled their message that there was no longer any reference to a corrupted process.

(Related: 10 Ways to improve the Citizens Redistricting Commission.)

By JOHN HRABE

“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog,” goes an old adage.

Just getting to Washington will be a test of friendship for the candidates in the dogfight over California’s new, redistricted 26th District in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the country’s hottest congressional races kicked off when one friend backed down from a fight against another friend. Rep. Elton Gallegly, R- Simi Valley, announced his retirement instead of challenging his GOP colleague, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Santa Clarita.

State Senator Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, has long coveted Gallegly’s congressional seat. (Strickland is pictured in the right of the nearby picture; to his left is Scott Wilk.)

Strickland delayed his campaign announcement a few days, out of deference to his friend, Gallegly. “Right now, I’d just like to focus on Elton and let him have his day,” Strickland said when first asked about the open seat.

Ventura County’s gossip mill has another version of the story. “LOL since they famously loathe each other,” tweeted Democratic consultant and gossip king, Jason Kinney. Gallegly and Strickland are more like “frenemies.” They’ve engaged in proxy battles for control of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee for more than a decade.

In 2006, Gallegly tried to handpick his successor and shatter Strickland’s congressional dreams. Ironically, that move formed the basis for a new friendship. Gallegly’s on-again, off-again re-election campaign resulted in a primary challenge from Michael Tenenbaum, a Ventura County attorney. Gallegly wanted a unified local party in his corner. Strickland didn’t want a political newcomer jumping the line. So, Strickland united the party behind Gallegly because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

‘You’ve Got a Friend in Me’

While Strickland and Gallegly moved past their rivalry, the 26th House race has turned two lifelong pals into fair-weather friends. One of Strickland’s “good friends” is Santa Clarita Community College Trustee Scott Wilk. They became fast friends years ago, while working as aides to conservative superstar Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay. Over the years, the friendship has blended the personal with the political.

In 2008, Wilk dispatched his son, Scott Wilk, Jr., to work on Strickland’s contentious California Senate campaign. “Lil’ Wilk” waved Strickland campaign signs in the morning, walked door-to-door during the day, and stuffed envelopes at night.  Strickland’s victory also gave Wilk Jr. the chance to learn the family business as an aide in Strickland’s legislative office.

Unsurprisingly, when Wilk expressed interest early last year in the 38th State Assembly seat, Strickland was among the first people to tell Wilk, “You’ve got a friend in me.”

“I can’t think of a better battle-tested conservative candidate than Scott Wilk,” Strickland proclaimed in the campaign’s first press release, long before Gallegly’s retirement. “That’s why I support Scott Wilk for Assembly.”

The Friendship Paradox

Strickland’s new congressional campaign, however, made Wilk the unwitting victim of the friendship paradox. That’s the theory that “most people have fewer friends than their friends have.”

Wilk counted Strickland among his friends, which means, according to the friendship paradox, Strickland has more friends than Wilk. Strickland’s friend list includes House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield. McCarthy and Strickland are BFFs, best friends forever, after serving together in the State Assembly. McCarthy, sticking with the friendship paradox, has more Facebook friends than Strickland, as the nearby chart shows.

One of McCarthy’s many friends is Rep. McKeon. McKeon objected to Strickland’s endorsement of Wilk for State Assembly because of another friendship. McKeon’s wife, Patricia, a sort of friend with benefits, is running for the same Assembly seat as Wilk. Blogger Dave Bossert reported, “Strickland was put under intense political pressure from Republicans” to drop Wilk.

You see, McKeon has friends in high places, the GOP congressional caucus. “A lot of folks in the delegation feel uncomfortable going all-out to help me when I’m going against Buck’s wife,” Strickland told National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher. “You take your wife’s races a little more personal than even your own.” If he stuck by Wilk, Strickland was jeopardizing financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Thereby proving, “He that hath a full purse never wanted a friend.”

To recap: McKeon got his friends in high places (the GOP Caucus) to help his friend with benefits (Patricia McKeon) by pressuring McCarthy into convincing his BFF (Strickland) to ditch the endorsement of his lifelong friend (Wilk).

With Friends Like These…

If you’re having trouble keeping up, you might need to track down a teenage girl to explain this next part. From 2001-2006, Rep. McKeon “got by with a little help from his friend.” A district director named … Scott Wilk. As McKeon’s top district aide, Wilk helped build McKeon’s political machine and made sizeable contributions to McKeon’s re-election campaigns.

Wilk entered the Assembly race long before Patricia expressed interest in any political office. Now, he’s facing the political machine and name identification he helped build. Wilk has to be wondering, “With friends like the McKeons, who needs enemies?” If, by this point in the story, you’ve lost all hope in political friendship, it’s not all de-friending in California’s 26th congressional race.

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, a longtime Strickland friend and campaign contributor, made a rare pre-primary endorsement of Strickland’s congressional bid. Locally, another Strickland friend, Ventura County GOP Chairman Mike Osborn, came through with a masterful, early endorsement by the county party. Under the California Republican Party’s new bylaws, the local party endorsement is a prerequisite before any party apparatus can get involved. The Osborn-orchestrated vote was unanimous.

“There is no better choice to represent Ventura County in Congress than Tony Strickland,” Osborn said of his good friend. Both Del Beccaro and Osborn can thank Strickland for helping them secure their party positions. State legislators appoint delegates to the state party and serve as ex-officio members of county committees.

It’s also safe to assume that the Los Angeles County Republican Party will follow Ventura County’s lead. The LA County GOP Chairwoman is Lynn Haueter. The Santa Clarita Signal recently dished that Haueter’s day job is as a full-time district representative for Sen. Strickland. According to her official party biography, Haueter was appointed to the county central committee by Strickland, after she helped with his 2008 campaign.

Haueter’s name is well known in the Santa Clarita Valley because of her husband, Bob. Yet another political friendship with benefits. Bob, who has a reputation as one of the most effective political professionals in California, works as the deputy chief of staffto Rep. McKeon.

A Friend in Need

Wilk, too, has some notable friends. McClintock, the political operation where Strickland and Wilk first forged their friendship, announced that he’d stick with Wilk. “He impresses the hell out of me and that was one of the easiest endorsements I’ve made in my whole career,” McClintock told National Journal.

The biggest name in California conservative politics also offered a principled example that “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Like his mentor McClintock, Wilk proved he’s also a loyal friend, a man who stands by his friends through thick and thin. “Tony is good friend and I still want him to know that he has my full support in his run for Congress,” Wilk posted on his Facebook page, the gold standard of friendship. “Tony Strickland will make an excellent congressman.”

Liberals Not Better Friends

Liberals can’t take too much pleasure in the Republican trouble among friends. Linda Parks and Steve Bennett, both liberal Ventura County Supervisors, have entered the 26th House race. Both are longtime leaders in the SOAR environmental movement. Both have unimpeachable environmental credentials. Both “led the political fight to save Ahmanson Ranch,” where they are shown in the picture at the right. Both have endorsed each other in their past supervisorial campaigns.

In 2007, Parks stood by Bennett’s side when he launched his re-election campaign. Parks was with Bennett on day one, a full year in advance of the election. In 2010, Bennett reciprocated with crucial support for Parks’ re-election fight against Audra Strickland, the wife of Tony. Audra was an assemblywoman who had to leave that office because of term limits. She lost badly in Parks in the election for supervisor.

Top Two Primary

Now, these one-time friends, Parks and Bennett, will be competing over the same pool of voters: liberals, women and environmentalists. California’s new primary rules might re-unite these friends-turned rivals again after the primary. The “Top Two” system means the top two vote winners in the primary, regardless of party, move on to the general election; no other choices will be on the ballot.

Should Bennett lose to Parks in the primary, Democrats may consider endorsing Parks in the general election. Strickland is considered Public Enemy No. 1 by Ventura County Democrats.

Meanwhile, Parks said in her campaign announcement she’d consider “no party preference,” a new designation under the Top Two system. Democrats may have no choice but to adopt the mantra: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What’s the lesson from this case study in political friendship? Good friends are hard to find. When in doubt, stick to man’s best friend. “Better make it a small dog, because it may turn on you also,” warned former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in what’s come to be known as the Rumsfeld Corollary, according to Safire’s Political Dictionary.

Maybe that’s why Strickland has three Chihuahuas.

(Notes: The dogs are not Strickland’s. And before my etymology friends email me: David Rothman, author of “The Solomon Scandals,” and Barry Popik, a contributor-consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary, have documented why Harry Truman isn’t the author of the famous quote.)