May 30, 2006
Angelides for Governor
This is a no-brainer. They're the campaign talking points, but they are true: when everyone else was afraid of the Governator, Angelides was the only statewide figure taking him on, and arguing that borrow-and-spend is not the responsible way to run a government. He's saying the same thing now, and, yes, that means raising some taxes. But that's what it means to be responsible.
Angelides is a real progressive: he has been the most successful and active state Treasurer since Jesse Unruh, who essentially invented the position in the 1970's. He has led the way to make the state's investment portfolio socially responsible, and has used the Treasurer's chairmanship of several debt allocation commissions to push for smart growth. For example, he has given priority for funding affordable housing tax credits to those projects linked with transit. Angelides ran for the office in 1994 and lost; he ran again in 1998 and won. Put another way, he actually wanted to be Treasurer because he had a vision for what the office could accomplish. For the most part, he has succeeded.
By contrast, it's hard to say what Steve Westly has done in his four years as state controller. The controller can audit state agencies, and that's a potentially formidable power. Westly hasn't done anything with it. Sacramento insiders note that he sometimes doesn't show up for work for weeks at a time.
In recent weeks, this campaign has turned ugly. That is essentially Westly's fault, who went negative and did so using Republican campaign tactics. His attack ads accused Angelides of being a big-government tax-and-spender: if I want that rhetoric, I'll just vote for Arnold.
Angelides also had a good response that every progressive should take to heart. Westly insisted that he would only raise taxes "as a last resort." Angelides countered, "what is a last resort? When we have a deficit for 10 years instead of 5? When we are 50th in per-pupil spending instead of 48th?" That's exactly right.
Kos has decided to sit this one out on the grounds of being turned off by both sides' negative attacks. He's just wrong: that's a mainstream media response. Westly started this thing, and Angelides was right not to let him get away with it. This is an easy, easy call.
Why do you say this is a no-brainer? Westly may have gone negative but frankly, with the kinds of skeletons Angelides has in his closet it's not exactly surprising nor irrelevant.
For example. Meet Angelo Tsakopoulos.
http://www.independent.com/news/2006/03/conflicts_of_interest.html
And no, I'm not really taking sides in this except to say I'm not really thrilled with either candidate. Honestly though I don't see any way I could stomach voting for Angelides. This kind of insider machine politiciking is how we got stuck with the governator in the first place. Bad Democrats are hardly better than Republicans.
Posted by: Clinton Bauder at May 30, 2006 06:13 PMOh Great! Divided and not happy with either side. The repugnicons couldn't have a hand in this could they?
Posted by: Fr33d0m at May 30, 2006 09:20 PMI dislike Westly because of those ads that he was running. I'm sure he was setting himself up for the general election, but the message I got was, "Vote for me because I'm not a moron like other Democrats." As a Democrat, that did not endear him to me.
Posted by: Mr. Turtle at May 30, 2006 09:31 PMAngelides won't get my vote, for no other reason then his desire to crow that he is backed by Feinstein. Further, I question your hearsay evidence of Westly's on the job performance & I don't believe he was the first to go negative. Since when is restating excerpts of major CA newspaper editorials going negative?
Angelides will be an old lapdog for our Dem. leaders who have repeatedly demonstrated they are incapable of making an oppositional argument.
If you think Angelides will be a lapdog for anyone, you know very little about him. I'd be more worried that he'd be _too confrontational_ to get negotiated settlements with the Rs and more conservative Ds. But, given his massive success in organizing the party in the early '90s -- changing CA from a red state that had voted six times in a row for Republicans for president, to the blue state we know today -- I have faith that he can manage the job.
Posted by: Auros at May 31, 2006 09:31 AMAngelides just sucks at messaging, and politics in general. He has the liberal "argue facts and cite laundry lists" disease. I just don't want to vote for people without talent anymore.
Sure he's a good guy policy wise. But running on raising taxes is simply stupid and naive.
I think Westly's OK, and he certainly understands the game better than Phil. He's a much better horse to go against Arnold.
This is a game, not a debating society, not a test of policy or progressive purity.
Posted by: Franklin Delano Sinatra at May 31, 2006 10:06 AMStill undecided? So was I.
I closed my eyes and decided to vote for the candidate that the repugs would NOT want as Ahnie's opponent.
IMO any Dem votes un-cast are votes FOR The Terminator.
Posted by: Max Rollins at June 1, 2006 09:57 AMOpen not your door when the devil knocks... Hansse
Posted by: Hansse at November 29, 2006 01:54 PMOpen not your door when the devil knocks... Hansse
Posted by: Hansse at November 29, 2006 01:54 PMOpen not your door when the devil knocks... Hansse
Posted by: Hansse at November 29, 2006 01:55 PMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
