This morning, the latest Field Poll delivered some very positive news for Tom Campbell: not only does he continue to lead California's GOP Senate primary, but he now leads Barbara Boxer in a hypothetical primary matchup.

Wow.

Focusing on the primary for a moment, here's how this morning's numbers broke down:

Tom Campbell 28%

Carly Fiorina     22%

Chuck DeVore    9%

In other words, there's been very little movement since the last Field Poll in late January. This despite efforts from both Fiorina and DeVore to call into question Campbell's support for Israel and the veracity of his current views on taxes. These are fair, legitimate questions a potential nominee should have to face in a primary but so far, they clearly haven't had an impact.

Moving to the general, here comes the stunner:

Tom Campbell  44%

Barbara Boxer   43%

Again: WOW.

These numbers might explain why I'm hearing from D.C. that the Demcrats are in full-scale panic mode over Boxer, as evidenced not only by Al Gore's recent fundraiser for her, but by the fact that even President Obama will be coming out here next month to lend her a hand. "Democrats are freaking out about Boxer," was the exact quote from a well-placed politico.

And it's in these general election numbers where Fiorina and DeVore can find much more comfort, with Carly in a statistical tie with Boxer and Chuck DeVore down only four points.

But those general election numbers won't matter if they can't get the primary polls to budge.

It's no longer "early," a claim that those behind in the polls could fall back on until now. DeVore has to get some momentum or, presumably, lining up donors will become increasingly challenging. And Carly's notoriety as a public CEO is seemingly nullified by Campbell's name recognition as a long-time California politico, so she's going to have to find a way to break through on the issues.

In what remains one of the most compelling primaries in the country, the last 83 days of this California GOP Senate battle should be downright fascinating.

Jon Fleischman of Flashreport.org just posted a very interesting article "Breaking News:  GOP AG Candidate Eastman Files As 'Assistant Attorney General'"

Mr. Eastman states that he was appointed by the South Dakota Attorney General on February 23, 2010 to represent and argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court Reisch v. Sisney, No. 09-953.

Furthermore, Mr. Eastman is now an "Assistant Attorney General" not for California, but for South Dakota.

It is quite amusing to read that Mr. Eastman says relative to the case he is working for the State of South Dakota:

Pursuant to the terms of my retainer agreement, I will be paid $20,000 for researching and writing the Petition for Certiorari and representing the state in submitting a reply to opposing briefs.

Then, Mr. Eastman can't live with the retainer amount when he wraps up the case:

I anticipate I would bill the state at least an additional $100,000 for such additional work.

There are two problems:  1) Ballot Designation and 2) Controllable Expenses on such a case.

If Mr. Eastman is going to bill the taxpayers of South Dakota 5 times what was the initial cost in the retainer agreement, then it makes many wonder if he will do the same as California's Attorney General.

I wish Mr. Eastman was forthcoming on this issue over the weekend with the delegates at the California Republican Party Spring Convention in Santa Clara and not after the fact.

We expect candidates to come clean with the voters and not play games, because we are getting tired of those "legal eagles" who think they can out smart the voters!

The Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee and San Francisco's KGO-TV ABC 7 all reported about the salary pay increases for the top staffers of Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles, District 46) and GOP Minority Leader State Assemblyman Martin Garrick (R-Solana Beach, District 74).

The pay increases were not modest, but rather hefty salary increases.

Speaker Perez's Chief of Staff Sara Ramirez salary went from $125K to $190K.

Assemblyman Garrick's Chief of Staff Michael Zimmerman salary went from $66K to $111K.

The public outcry on the pay increases has been pretty fierce up and down the state, while the economy is still stuck in low gear and California's unemployment is at staggering 12.5%.

Few weeks ago, former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Culver City, District 47) discreetly approved pay raises to her key staffers on her last day as Assembly Speaker on Friday, February 26, 2010 according to the Sacramento Bee.

Unfortunately, if I had known that Assemblyman Garrick had given his key staffers pay increases, I would have asked him serious questions at last weekend's California Republican Party Spring Convention in Santa Clara.

It still boggles my mind to think that those HUGE pay raises may seem acceptable for the top legislative staffers and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

We need to remind legislators that public service is noble service with an understanding there are people who are willing to do the work with a reasonable salary!

Who won last night's first-ever debate between GOP gazillionaire gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner?

That depends on what you think constitutes "winning."

In the conventional, debate club sense, probably Poizner. For one thing, he was more relaxed -- the result of his having participated in a number of these when Tom Campbell was still in the race. And he displayed a greater mastery of policy details and state government nuts-and-bolts than Whitman.

Where he was strongest, in my opinion, was on the subject of taxes: his consistent advocacy of "bold, broad-based tax cuts" as opposed to Whitman's more tentative, targeted approach -- and hitting Whitman for saying we "can't afford" broad-based tax cuts -- is more in tune with the conservative Republican electorate. California's economy is sick, and Whitman's prescription is comparatively weak medicine -- like administering Motrin when antibiotics are called for.

Some prominent Republicans I spoke with afterward judged Poizner the winner for basically the sames reasons mentioned above.

That said, I don't think that mattered. In this case, "winning" is defined by whether the debate changed the dynamics of the campaign. And it is Poizner, not Whitman, he needed to do that -- and I don't think he succeeded.

The last batch of polls had Poizner approximately 30 points behind Whitman, who has been bombarding the airwaves for months, whereas Poizner only ginned up his paid media campaign a few weeks ago (tomorrow's Rasmussen poll should give us some indication whether it has moved the needle).

Poizner needed to Whitman to self-destruct in the debate. She didn't.

Whitman just needed to come in and do well enough. She succeeded. She was solid, focused on a few overarching issues (as opposed to Poizner, who's plan as governor seems to be to charge every hill, simultaneosuly.)

So at the end of the evening, nothing had really changed: Whitman has been having a one-way conversation with voters via her commercials while Poizner busy complaining to the media that she wouldn't debate, won;t have press conferences, etc. Now she's way ahead in the polls as the June primary draws ever nearer, and beating him up over the airways -- while Poizner is trying to introduce himself to voters while simultaneously going negative on Whitman. In a few weeks, the airwaves are going to crowded with commercials from other statewide candidates and initiatives, making it even harder for Poizner to break through the clutter.

Poizner had a good message to deliver to voters, and the resources with which to do it. Why he allowed Whitman to have voters to herself for so long, waiting until just recently to launch his paid media campaign, is something i will never understand.

But, it does help answer a question on the minds of a lot of conservatives who aren't terribly excited about either candidate: which one will run a stronger campaign against Jerry Brown? Look at it this way: conservatives are faced with a choice between two moderate Republicans. Since philosophy isn't really the issue, the question of who is more likely to run the kind of campaign that can beat Jerry Brown acquires more importance. And so far, most would answer that question, "Meg Whitman."

Following last night's debate with Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner made a stop at the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee to give a rah-rah to the assembled faithful. It was standard, "I'm the real conservative" stump fare.

While rumbling across the issue landscape, Poizner came to the subject of the Citizen Power Initiative, which would get the government out of the business of collecting political dues for public sector unions. He hammered at the importance of enacting CPI in order to rein in California's uber powerful government unions, and thundered he "would do whatever it takes to pass the Citizen Power Initiative!"

At that point, I wish I had yelled out, "How about getting out your check book and writing a check for $2 million to the campaign!" -- because that would certainly give the troubled qualification campaign the resources to hire an army of circulators and get it on the November ballot. Poizner can certainly afford it, and it would certainly buttress his claim to the be "real conservative" in the gubernatorial primary. Talk is cheap.

This is huge for Doug LaMalfa in his SD4 race with Rick Keene.  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) is the most respected taxpayers organization in CA.

Keene and LaMalfa have very similar voting records (average CRA voting record for Keene- 88%, average CRA voting record for LaMalfa- 97%, see link here).  No doubt the fact that Keene voted for the Democrat's 2007 State Budget which irresponsibly increased spending, and created a Gray Davis-sized fiscal crises all of which piles debt upon our kids and pushes the state toward future(?) insolvency-- that played into HJTA decision to endorse Doug LaMalfa.  Can there be any question why Doug LaMalfa is the favorite candidate of the Tea Party Patriots?