Will Jackie Speier Have a Challenge from the Left?

Hmm, massive waste of resources... you mean like spending tens of millions of dollars to attack the potential Presidential nominee of this party, as 2/3 of this website is about to engage in?

I like Speier and Lawrence Lessig (say the name), FWIW.

#

This whole idea of avoiding primary fights is undemocratic and bad for our party. If someone thinks they have more to offer the residents of this district, they should put themselves forward and let the voters have their choice. Primary fights may cost some money, but they also energize activists and help motivate voters (and you may have noticed that the reason some people think rent control will be eliminated this June is that Democrats won't bother to vote)and they force incumbent elected officials to work hard, not just raising money, but also listening to their constituents. For all the party might lose by a challenge that gets blown out (If that's the way it plays)we have as much to gain by people coming into the system. If the idea of yielding to obvious frontrunners was commonly accepted, Barack Obama would not be running for President right now and if a few more candidates had his guts, they might have beaten him out.

#

Lessig is a truly inspirational figure no matter what political stripe you look at him from. Lessig was a clerk for Justice Scalia and is one of the leading legal theorists in the area of intellectual property law. His current mission is reforming campaign finance rules.

A debate between Lessig and Speier would be an inspirational one, with both being outstanding communicators. If you think Lessig is going to engage in a slugfest, I would suggest you scratch the surface a little harder. He is a reformer of impeccable repute. He wants to change the way how politicians work in DC. And as an added bonus, he's offered a guarantee that he'd step down after 2 terms if his constituents don't feel he's been successful.

I love Jackie Speier. I think she would be a fine Congresswoman, but how can you possibly argue that a primary would be a waste of resources? She isn't even an incumbent yet, and I see no reason why she should be considered a fait accompli. I guess she's been running for longer, is that how it works? If so, I'm announcing right now that I'm running for Senate in 2012. Vote Leubitz 2012, any challenges are a waste of resources!

If this is a waste of resources, then why don't we just abandon the primary process entirely. What are the standards for what we consider a waste of resources. I suppose that because Senator Obama has a big lead and lots of resources and momentum, you'll be advocating for Senator Clinton to drop out now, right? I mean, to continue garnering resources for an internal struggle is just a waste of resources, right? If we have no primary process in this district, then we have no election at all, as you state. And where is the democracy in that?

In fact, on a call a few weeks ago, Ms. Speier said she looks forward to a race and is preparing for it. I'll take her word for that, and look forward to what could be some fascinating debates between two very intelligent people.

#

if you think it's a good idea for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent over a sliver of difference of ideas when 20 miles away there will be a battle royale for a key Congressional seat, well then, go for it. Primaries are a good thing when there are fundamental differences between candidates. That doesn't seem to be the case here. So let's debate the gimmick of quitting after two terms if Mr. Lessig doesn't make a difference or a gutter-ball campaign opening of attacking Senator Speier for accepting campaign contributions from insurance companies (when she was one of the most pro-consumer legislators in Sacramento). That's so productive.

#

Wait...so if it is a safe seat for 1 party, there should be no challanger? Did you analyze what that means before you typed it?...what is this, communist Russia?! There shall be no challangers to the annointed candidate or you shall be executed by the party! 1 candidate, 1 party democracy for all!

#

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact the new congressmember will be a superdelegate, does it?

#

It's not like I think she's going to lose.

#

"Primaries are a good thing when there are fundamental differences between candidates."

CMR didn't seem to think that when they were attacking Westly for challenging the annointed Phil Angelides in 2006.

#

CMR didn't have a horse in that race. You've got the wrong website.

#

Sure you didn't...

#

The website was launched on August 23, 2006. The primary was June 6, 2006.

#

I realize that as I've been a reader from the start.

Your bashing (not necesarily you, but CMR) was after the fact. There were many posts insinuating that if Westly had just gone away, Angelides would have won. Angelides was doomed from day one. I still don't know why the party lined up behind him for the slaughter.

#

Considering Westly has made a number of guest posts on CMR and his gubernatorial budget director is a frequent contributor and editor, I suppose all is forgiven for whatever random posts you may be remembering that were critical of him. Even if there were posts critical of Westly running against Angelides (I don't recall any, but you may be right), that would be consistent with a blog that frequently has internal disagreements.

#