First some disclosure, (since the diary rules won't allow me to put much of this in the main header) As most of you in CA already know... a bunch of us have started a site called
GovernorPhil.com. You might remember us from that whole
Angela Bradstreet fiasco from last week that made it to
the mydd front page and
prompted a response from Dianne Feinstein, and
had DiFi showing at Phil's economic event on wed.
I guess since I live in California, for the most part I don't hit so much of the "damned libruls" wall as others do, but just like the Bloomberg Democrats, Bradley's folks all seem to have the narrative already set, which doesn't include Phil Angelides in their reindeer games. Every story has an an anti-Angelides slant, and even when he's right on (such as specifics about corporate tax loopholes), he can be such an ass about it you want to disagree with him just for the hell of it. Anyway, read on, there's plenty to see here:
Dday's summary of Bradley is pretty excellent, so i'm going to lift it.
Bill Bradley (not the great Senator from NJ and former Presidential candidate) has been one of the main political journalists covering state politics in Sacramento for years. He writes for the LA Weekly and at his site New West Notes, which used to be a top secret newsletter for political insiders. Indeed everything about him screams insider, and most of the time he's the one doing the screaming. Bradley touts himself as a longtime Democratic operative, a moderate who crossed over to vote for John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary (um, wasn't that held a couple months after McCain dropped out?), the first reporter to get it right on the outcome of the 2003 California recall, etc., etc., etc. In the world of Bradley, Bradley is king.
So after a non stop stream of anti-Angelides comments, snarky asides, nitpicking details about Phil's new economic plan that would make a master economists eyes glaze over in boredom, and talking about horseback riding. (uhh... archetype much?), Dan from GovernorPhil.com chimes in:
# Dan Ancona Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Schwarzenegger stated baldly that he has no plan whatsoever to fix the deficit. He is apparently perfectly fine continuing to run the state into the ground, letting the middle class bite it and sucking up to whomever is writing the checks for another four years. He owns eight hummers and is trying to run as an environmentalist.
But all people here can talk about are Phil's personality quirks and how his economic plan isn't as detailed as it could be. Interesting perspective.
Mencken was right: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
Beautiful and succinct, Bradley disagrees of course, and that's where I chime in:
# neutron Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 10:35 am
You know, i've got to agree with Dan, it's amazing reading comments in here...
you would think that Arnold had a plan other then "more bonds" and "more cuts"...
Hell you'd think Arnold was an actual MODERATE, instead of playing one on TV.
Whereas Phil isn't the boogeyman that he appears to be.
Please note, at this point was when I finally decided to address Mr. Garry South, aka Westly and Davis's hitman.
Master of the negative campaign, a sort of legend in California. He had been snarking through the whole thread, and even though everybody complains about how dirty the primary was, nobody has ever, to my knowledge laid it at his feet... especially for that horrible untrue ad that made Angelides look like a money hungry developer who didn't give two craps for the environment (even though the Sierra club endorsed both candidates in the primary and Phil in the general)
Anyway, still me here:
Hey Mr. South, nice hatchet work in the primary BTW.
I particularly enjoyed the anti-environmental ad.
Nothing like a blatant lie.
What's the old saying? Even if you know it's not true let the bastard defend himself against it.
Anyway, it must feel nice to have almost singlehandedly jaded most of the voters in the state this cycle. :)
So i've got to ask you, what would your play have been in this case?
Since nobody can stop talking about taxes and Arnold's big time boogeyman is "He will raise your taxes111!!" It seems to me like he had to make some kind of announcement and clarification.
yet even then he's criticized.
While Arnold literally has said he has no plan to end the deficit, while in front of a sign that says "Paying Down The Debt". And it doesn't even get a mention.
Seriously though, as for Phil what's the guy to do?
He supports the redistricting reform and clean money bills and it barely gets on the radar in the press. People are obsessed about taxes, because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that we lost 9 billion some odd bucks int he rolling blackmail and Arnold hasn't done crap to fix it, other then borrow, borrow, cut some, and borrow some more.
I think equating Phil to Gray (ugh) or Cruz (zzzzz), is ridiculously inaccurate, and it's always like walking into an alternate universe over here whenever there are comments about the Democratic Nominee. From the amount of negativity over here, you'd think that Phil personally wrecked each and every one of your homes with an axe or something.
Anyway, it's astounding to me... really.
I guess you guys are "sick of paying taxes" like Angela Bradstreet, eh?
-C.
http://www.governorphil.com
boom!
there goes the molotov cocktail in the room.
I have to admit, while it's a legit question, I was trying to get a rise out of Garry South too.
Dan then comes in:
# Dan Ancona Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Bill I read the piece, but it didn't answer the one big question I had: which plan is more detailed, Phil's or Schwarzenegger's nonexsitent one? Shouldn't you at least have mentioned that? Why wasn't the headline "Angelides provides details on economic plan, Schwarznegger still has squat"?
If the corporate loophole plan doesn't work out and Phil has to raise an extra $1.1 billion out of the $17 billion that the President has seen fit to bless the most fortunate slice of the topmost fortunate with, so what. That's going to be just fine with the other 99.5% of Californian voters who have yet to strike it rich in the Casino Economy.
excellent rebuttal, well put together, etc.
but ah... i'm waiting to hear from Garry, and i'm not disappointed:
# Garry South Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:19 am
neutron, you accusing me of being a liar? You might be getting yourself into more than you can handle. My bet is I know a bit more about Angelides' enviro record than you or any blogger in American does. Did you know the Sierra Club refused to endorse him the first two times he ran for treasurer because of his environmental depradations as a developer? BTW, you're a political campaign expert because of . . . what?
Nice! got to love that, still trying to fight a battle long since lost, even if it means hurting the Democratic candidate, still defending the lies, and THEN questioning my qualificiations.
Well, I could have played it cool... but honesty is the best policy right:
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Hi Garry, no I didn't say you were a liar I said the ad was a blatant lie.
There is a difference.
As for the Sierra Club, they endorsed Phil and Steve in the primary, and Phil in the general.
I don't want to re-fight the primary though. I think we're all still cleaning the mud off right?
It's also my position that the negative part of the primary really depressed turnout, and probably cost us the special election in CA-50 (which, to be fair is a whole `nother discussion)
Obviously it takes two to tango for that... but as your (damn effective) work for Davis shows, you are damn good at it.
BTW, you're a political campaign expert because of . . . what?
My exceptionally high opinion of myself? :)
To be fair, i've got no credentials at all, other then helping craft a few policy papers, giving free advice, running the long defunct (and obviously not especially effective) bandsagainstbush organization, blogging about politics for about 4 years, and following the stuff like most guys I know follow sports.
I've never made one cent from a campaign, which may or may not make my criticism invalid to you.
Let me ask you Garry, who would you rather see as Governor?
Phil or Arnold?
And if it's Arnold, how much of that is sour grapes?
I'm being serious here, i'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I honestly just can't tell.
-C.
ok, so I was trying to get a LITTLE bit of a rise out of him, i'll admit that!
Anyway, Dan stays on point like a champ:
# Dan Ancona Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Bill: If Phil tries to do the right thing - the thing that, what 70% someodd of Californians support - re: taxes and a bunch of obstructionist Rs stop him because of another damn broken thing we need to fix, that's his fault? The tax loophole stuff is still in the .pdf, it's just not featured as prominently. Seriously, I want to know how Phil tweaking the emphasis of his plan is somehow bigger news than Schwarzenegger continuing to struggle along on a failed philosophy of governance.
Yep, Schwarzenegger has submitted budgets, and each one has been held together with spitballs and duct tape. They haven't balanced, he has no plan to fix the deficits he's created, and he admits as much. You saw this, right?
http://governorphil.com/...
He has all but admitted that it suits both him and the very very rich that are bankrolling him for the budget not to balance.
Garry: pulling rank on poor old Conan is a pretty shabby tactic. Talk about dodging the substance of his critique. But fine, if you insist, then you are clearly the Mr. BSD Campaign Expert Man here. I'm sure you had only the best interests of the state in mind in firing a couple of Westly's milllions worth of sludge at Phil.
to be fair to Garry, he is taking my criticism like a man, with a minimum of whining... well except for the fact that my opinion is invalid since I don't work on campaigns. Ok that's kind of a big one, but he could definitely be less receptive, so I appreciate that.
# Garry South Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Hey, Dan, someone gets on a blog and shoots of their mouth, they're exercising their 1st Amendment right. That doesn't mean others don't have a right to question their standing in terms of making all the iron-clad declarative pronouncements and predictions that Conan likes to make. I blog under my real name, and my record is well known. People can and do take shots ay me all the time, and that's fine. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Anyway, I wish that was the only front that we had been fighting on this war.
And remember these are the people that are at least... SUPPOSED to be on our side.
got to love this Bradley quote from another thread re: a a post on Governorphil.com with video of Arnold saying there really is plan to end the deficit, in front of a sign saying PAYING DOWN THE DEBT:
# Bill Bradley Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Look, I've read your Kossack theorems on "changing the media narrative" and am well aware of what you are up to.
Linking to an out of context video clip is not exactly impressive.
I hope you're not going to attempt to waste my time.
Ooooh! He's read my Kossack theorems, which shouldn't be surprising since according to his About Me page, of the many self-aggrandizing statements made, there is this gem:
He is a member of the Screen Actors Guild, the American Legion, Mensa, and other high IQ societies.
I was going to keep from attacking the guy, but i'll just let that one sit with you. Mainly because he can't stop needling me about my name! (Ko'nihn not Ko'nahn buckaroo)
Anyway, Garry actually brings up Governorphil.com, and what our exact purpose is, if any of us have met the candidate, etc.
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:10 am
hi Garry,
To answer your last question, some of us have met Phil, some of us have not.
Some of it is a party thing...
That's something that was missed a lot with the Lieberman/Lamont party, a lot of people were pissed about the war sure, but going on Fox News to trash talk Democrats all the time doesn't make you many friends either.
Well actually, I guess it does, just in the Republican party, since Joe is pretty much the defacto Republican nominee.
getting back on point though: mostly it's filling a void and helping where we can. We are all united in the fact that we want Phil Angelides to be the next Governor of California. It's not about "hating on Republicans" or being "anti-Arnold", it's that we truly and honestly think Phil Angelides will be a great governor.
Phil's biggest problem (as is that of the campaign) is effective messaging. His policy proposals are good...
As for Arnold having the benefit of incumbency, well... everybody loves a comeback story right? That can help Phil as well.
In some ways Angelides is stuck in the Al Gore role since the media seems to absolutely adore the current Governor. I guess it's that movie star thing.
-Conan
Thre's a lot more back and forth somebody calls us a bunch of Kos kidz...
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Ann- Kos kidz... nice! Get that from redstate.com?
Actually I started on Mydd.com if you want to be fair about it. But then again I guess all of us "blogonistas" are the same and think in a hivemind right? hah.
Anyway, as far as linking over here, the site is still pretty new... even still, not to brag, but traffic isn't a problem for us. However I wouldn't expect most folks to really be aware of it here, hence the linking... if that's distasteful or unseemly, then i'll cut it out, no worries.
i'm not here to piss in the pool after all.
As an aside though, I think we can disagree without resorting to namecalling right?
I mean, if not... i've got a loquacious bevy of zingers I can toss out, don't get me wrong. :)
Bradley,
I don't represent the campaign, i'm not an economist, i'm a dude that works with computers who follows politics like some people follow sports.
i'm not an expert, I don't pretend to be.
you bring up some good points as far as policy position specifics, it is always nice to see details for that kind of thing isn't it?
(It'd be interesting to see Arnold's details as well.)
for my own curiosity I dropped a line to the campaign to try and get some answers.
Their communication has increased by leaps and bounds lately, so we'll see where I get with that. When I get an answer back I plan on posting it to govphil, you know between working my regular (non-political) job, and the rest of my life.
My initial reaction?
this is good, and an excellent first step that could use a little more in the way of details. In that I agree with you...
-Conan
fair right?
I acknowledged Bill had a few points about details that were valid, even if I disagree with the way he is presenting them.
# Garry South Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Bill, how much longer are you going to let these blog swarmers like Conan try to dominate your own blog?
Garry South courting the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH vote.
Anyway, enough of that meta nonsense:
There's this one too, which relates to a post on dailykos.
Here's the quote:
The Daily Kos explanation for Lieberman's lead over Lamont? It's the media's fault. The solution to the problem? "Scandalize" Lieberman. For those who may not know, the Daily Kos is one of the big hyperpartisan web sites.
Hap Hazard Says:
I think Bill's characterization of the Lamont race as a relatively unique situation is accurate, but I think that the defeat of Lamont in November, which I think is likely, will have a profoundly negative impact on Markos and the left wing netroots crowd, a vast majority of which, in my opinion, are aging activists of the 60s and 70s. So if Lamont does lose, it may be the event that finally consigns that group to history. It might turn out to be a turning point for the Democratic Party. Maybe it could once again become a party that has a big tent out back.
Which prompted this comment from "ModerateDem", one of Bradley's echo chamber commenters:
ModerateDem Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:07 am
The netroots people make me want to become an Independent.
Now of course I can't let that stand now can I?
Yet again reinforcing that tired old narrative of the netroots being this McGovern-ite cabal of evil lefties and what not...
so I write:
How so?
One of the netroots darling is Jim Webb, former Naval Secretary under Reagan.
The Netroots as "far left blogonistas" is a tired, ridiculous narrative that's under played.
Also, Pajamas media?
I thought they went under already.
(smirk, smirk)
-Conan
PS: Lamont will be the next Senator from Connecticut, but it will probably be as close as the primary. Joe will then get a high paying job in the private sector.
I refute a point in the comment, state my case, make a smartass comment about Pajamas media, and then give my forecase for the Connecticut race, even realistically plotting out Joe's career path after a close loss.
So what do I get back in return?:
Bill Bradley Says:
Conan, your lack of knowledge becomes apparent when you get away from links to brief video clips.
James Webb is hardly a "netroots" person. I really hope you are not going to attempt to claim him.
A few personal attacks and jabs from the site operator, along with Mr. South trying once again to prove that since I haven't worked on a million campaigns before, my opinion is clearly invalid.
# Garry South Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:23 am
One again, Conan, I'm curious, what exactly about your background/experience makes you a political genius? Would you mind sharing some of your background with us, instead of just shooting off your mouth?
And as if that isn't enough, he follows it up with a right hook on the same lines:
# Garry South Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am
You know, it's funny, I've been heavily involved in CA politics for 15 years, and I don't recall running into a single blogger who's part of GovernorPhil in a single campaign. I guess I'll start a blog on auto mechanics, underthehood.org, even though I don't know how to change a spark plug. Now you're telling all the rest of us how it is, and how it's going to be. Have any of you ever actually managed a campaign for any office, or does your political expertise come from the ionosphere? Just curious.
ooooh! Saaavage burn there Garry. Because of course unless you've managed a campaign you are unqualified to speak about them right?
But it gets better! Before I even have the chance to respond to the other two comments (hey, my job isn't talking politics unfortunately)... I get another missive from Garry... I guess that shot to the solar plexis earlier about jading the electorate hit home:
Btw, your new netroots populist hero Ned Lamont (lives in a $30 million house in Greenwich; grandfather ran J.P Morgan; traded in his Jag for a Prius five months ago) won exactly 52% of 40% (the turnout) of 30% (the percentage of registered Ds in CT) in the primary. If you do the math, that works out to 7% of CT voters voted for Lamont. Boy, that's some earth-shaking national movement. And in the real CT electorate, Lieberman is now 12 points ahead. Lieberman will continue to be the senator from CT. But I'm sure you know more about it than I do.
As if I expected Lamont to be a pauper right?
Here is my response:
What does Lamont's wealth have to do with it? GARRY SOUTH, WHAT IS THIS CLASS WARFARE??!!
(smirk, smirk)
Come on now, Joementum isn't hurting for cash either.
Hey, fact of the matter is if you want to win a statewide office you have to have some $$$ of your own to kick down with those $5, $10 and $20 contributions we funded him on.
Another reason why Phil's support of the Clean Money initiative makes me really happy.
Lieberman will continue to be the senator from CT.
I doubt it, seriously.
But I'm sure you know more about it than I do.
You're right, I do.
-Conan
BTW, the (smirk, smirk) thing is something I got from South earlier... in reference to Angelides smirking a lot, and Feinstein telling him (on mic, by accident) not to smirk between thoughts.
Anyway, this next exchange between Bradley and me is fairly self explanatory:
# Bill Bradley Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Lamont has been a mostly self-funded candidate. Kind of like the Steve Westly of Connecticut, except Westly didn't inherit his money.
What do you think is happening with the Clean Money initiative? :)
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Bill:
James Webb is hardly a "netroots" person. I really hope you are not going to attempt to claim him.
you've got to be kidding me right?
Let's start with: a draft website started by the RaisingKaine folks
1,188 donors through the netroots alliance page, raising $36,175.97 thus far
($118,786.97 overall through actblue)
Webb's candidacy would never have come to fruitiion if not for the netroots and our early support.
Early money is like yeast right?
Harris Miller would be the nominee, which would mean that it wouldn't even be a race, instead of the toss up George Felix Allen's big mouth is making it.
Granted, the establishment have picked up on it now, and this race is a joint effort, but it wouldn't even be on the charts if not for the people with the Draftwebb site.
The netroots are about standing up for ideals, NOT radical left dogmatism.
That's why Hillary Clinton is not so well liked, where as Mark Warner and Russ Feingold can somehow occupy similar popularity levels.
I can get meta on this for days.
-C.
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Lamont was totally mostly a self funded candidate... after all the millionare's rule cicked in didn't it? Joe had to be loving that... another round of fat checks from his DC buddies. :)
Are you asking why I think Clean Money is good?
First off, I don't think you should be a millionare to be able to run for office.
And if that means cutting down on the power of organized labor and unions, hey... so be it. And that's coming from the son of a long time union stalwart.
-Conan
# Bill Bradley Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Actually, I know a lot about James Webb and he is not a candidate because of the "netroots." He's hardly one of you, either.
Your point about Lieberman with regard to Lamont is incoherent.
And, no, you did not answer my question about the Clean Money initiative, you used my question to deliver more rhetoric.
Bored.
# Conan Newton Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
He's not a candidate because of the draft movement then?
Really, that's news to me.
Please let me know why he's a candidate then, let alone the nominee. The draft movement took subtle interest and helped parlay that into a candidacy... in these kinds of things there's no "one thing" that makes it happen, but it would be dishonest to discount the work of the VA bloggers in helping out in the early days.
As far as hardly being one of us either, what does that even mean?
He blogs, he has our support, there is no issues "litmus test" for blogosphere support.
My point about Lieberman vs. Lamont is crystal clear... other then mis-spelling the word "clicked"
netroots donors to Lamont 3,021 netroots page: $108,226.15
overall $310,943.98
That's about 100 bucks each.
I don't have his disclosure or cash on hand in front of me, but I know he put in a lot of cash himself. I don't have time to look up the numbers, but after a certain amount of self funding the opponent gets to do another round of fundraising in CT. That happened.
As far as self funding, hey I'm fine with that, hell if Westly was the nominee, it's the one thing I was totally looking forward to.
As for clean money, perhaps I don't understand the question, then.
I think it's a good idea, I support it.
I don't want to seem like i'm going into rhetoric though.
-C.
After this Bill pretty much refuses to talk to me, and somebody else talks about Kool Aid drinking (nice! what is this free republic? redstate??! Somebody want to call me a moonbat next?). Dan tells me they are exchanging "heated" e-mails as well.
Now I go to Bradley's site for two reasons, his coverage, albeit usually slanted (despite his claims to the contrary) is generally alright, and I don't like just existing in the echo chamber. Yet they seem to flip the hell out anytime anybody disagrees with them, or if the topic of conversation deviates in any way, shape or form.
The main criticism of the blogosphere is that it becomes a partisan echo chamber, fair enough, hence my exploration of other forums with different ideas. Yet a civilized discussion seems out of the question.
I think that, with the exception of me picking on Garry South, we were generally pretty fair, and subject to some pretty lame namecalling and such. What do you think?
-C.
PS: The crux of Bill's arguments seem to be that if you try to go outside the boundaries of his narrative arc, including it would seem, questioning the slant or position of the piece, or questioning his motives. Then you get cut off.
Amazing.
It also gives him free range to only address and answer what he feels like.
must be nice.
Permalink | 11 comments