Thanks for the great diary, but...
...as I learned more about the candidates - and looked at their campaigns in action - I went in the opposite direction from you, growing more inclined towards Westly.
Since this campaign has largely devolved into a televised slap-fight, I'll stick to the issues. I'm going to follow your lead and go through with a counter-point to your ten reasons.
While we differ in opinions, I appreciate people like you who are writing diaries that keep to the issues. Thanks for raising the level of debate!
I've come down on Westly's side, but want to make clear that (while both have their faults) both are good Democrats with almost thirty years of activism in the party. They really are so similar that it has made this a really hard choice.
#1 & #2 - Funding for education (K-12 and Higher): This is actually one of my key issues with Angelides.
He wants to spend money in the right places. I'm all for increasing school funding. Lord knows California needs it.
The problem is his platform is based largely on cash solutions to problems: more funding for this, more funding for that. He wants to raise taxes. I'll get to the politics of that later, but for now let's say he is elected on this tax increase platform. He won't get the increase through the Legislature. With the 66% vote needed for a tax increase, it just isn't going to happen. The state has a hard time getting a budget passed on time, with the threat of the government shutting down which makes everyone look bad. How does he think he's going to get any of the Republicans (who come from gerrymander districts that assure they are all from the far right) to sign on to a tax increase?
Therefore, I think it's a little disingenuous to run on this platform of tax-funded cash solutions and not tell the voters that it's a revenue source that will never clear the Legislature.
You say Westly has no plan, but his plan of lottery reform (which will only close part of the gap) is as real as Angelides' plan which is based on a tax increase that will never pass. You also say Westly has no plan for higher education, but you can read his plan for free Community College for all on his website, and it is already paid for by fully funding Prop. 98, which has already been passed by the voters, and wouldn't need to get through the Legislature.
#3 - Endorsements: First, I would never vote for somebody based on an endorsement list. Politics has always been about back scratching and horse-trading. You list a few, including Boxer and Feinstein (both of whom owe him for helping them get elected when he was Party Chair), Assembly Speaker Nunez (who was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying both candidates are fine), Leader Pelosi (whose husband has made a ton of money doing business with Angelides once and current business partner)...You see where I'm going. You also mention the Sierra Club and National Organization for Women, who have also ENDORSED WESTLY. Moreover, Westly has a good list of endorsements, too. I'm from L.A., where Westly was recently endorsed by 9 of the 15 members of the Los Angeles City Council.
I want to note one you missed, the California Democratic State Central Committee has endorsed Angelides, but you have to keep in mind that this is a public ballot where names are listed next to who they voted for. Many or most of the Delegates are insiders who work in politics, or are appointed by electeds. You are right that Angelides has the longer endorsement list; all of those people get to put folks on the central committee, whose names show up next to who they voted for. What do you think would happen if your boss put you on the Central Committee and then you voted against a candidate they endorsed? This actually brings me to the key rebuttal about your "endorsements" point. There is a great emphasis on loyalty in partisan politics, Angelides as a former state party chair has done a lot for people who are powerful, and they are showing loyalty. It's not a bad thing, but I am not going to base my vote on Barbara Boxer repaying a favor.
#4 - Westly has the Press-Enterprise Endorsement. It is certainly a conservative paper. However, he also has the endorsement of the VERY, VERY liberal San Francisco Chronicle. It's a wide spectrum of support and the newspapers that are endorsing are all saying that Westly will bring that crossover appeal to the race and to Governing; bringing people together in a state horribly fractured by fierce partisanship.
#5 - Getting off fossil fuels: Westly has a plan addressing this too, which he presented to Robert Redford and company at a big Sundance environmental summit. It goes farther, but not as fast as the Angelides plan. 20% by 2015 and 40% by 2025. He also has plans for moving toward renewable power sources such as solar (which he worked on in the Carter administration DOE). I also don't like in your description of the Angelides energy plan the reliance on "Smart Growth" to fix the problem.
I'm all for "Smart Growth," but I don't count on Angelides to provide it. He tried for it in his days as a developer, but the projects never really got there. They received moderate reviews for their smart growth success, and were wracked with other environmental problems along the way, notably they were often built on wetlands. He cleaned up his act since he started running for office, but learned the ropes of business under one of the most destructive developers California or the country has ever seen. You can take the man out of the development, but can you take the developer out of the man?
#6 - Angelides has done good things in demanding corporate governance while on the board of CalPERS and CalSTRS, the state's pension funds. But, you must remember Westly also sits on those Pension boards and deserves at least some of the credit for those programs. I am also concerned by recent stories about both candidates steering pension fund business towards campaign contributors. This is especially true of Angelides, who has repeatedly taken investments and legal contracts to contributors who have given him $4.5 million dollars. All of this was in the LA Times last week. Westly's hands aren't clean either, but $4.5 million from donors who do business with CalPERS is a huge amount of money.
I am also a little concerned about Angelides plan to invest California Pension funds in companies outside of the US to boost their economies as a way to slow illegal immigration. It's an interesting outside the box policy idea, but I don't like having state workers and teachers pensions sunk into flailing economies to prop them up. Maybe other funds, but not pension money.
#7 - I will agree with you here. I also think Westly is more of an incrementalist. That's a matter of style that is a plus or a minus, depending on who you ask. Sometimes, things NEED to be tackled in steps.
This is one of the things I have liked hearing Westly speak on healthcare. He openly says, "I want to move toward universal coverage." Good. That's where he should be. Angelides wants to go there, as well. Great. They're both on the same page as to the goal; it's the means where they differ a little.
Westly has called for two things off the bat:
1) signing the "Healthy Families" bill that Arnold vetoed. That would insure California's kids.
2) Signing what used to be called "SB-2," it was on the ballot as Prop. 72(I think?) and just barely failed. This would require all but the smallest companies to provide their workers with a basic healthcare coverage.
That's the first two steps, and would cover all the kids, and anyone who's working for a medium or larger sized company. A good start. Then you take the next step, which is getting everyone else.
Phil backs a bill known as the "Kuehl (sp?) Bill." It's an interesting bill, but was scored by whoever figures out what these things out as costing HUGE (tens of billions, or more!) amounts of money. It is too expensive for California's teetering finances, and AGAIN it won't get through the Legislature because of the cost.
#8 - I've never heard Westly say anything about "tracking" students into vocational programs. You're probably talking about his Community College for All plan, which includes vocational degrees. If you want to talk about the achievement gap, don't talk about vocational vs. 4-Year; look at the drop out rate. Almost have of Latinos and African Americans are NOT MAKING IT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. If someone makes it through and wants to go to vocational school instead of four years and the state will pay for that, I say bravo. I went to a California Community College before transferring to a Four-Year program. There were many, many students there who couldn't afford four years at the more expensive school. Westly's plan would make the two years at Community College/J.C. free. Then they could transfer (which happens all the time) and pay for the last two years at a CSU or University of California school.
It's not about tracking lower class people into Trade School; it's providing those people who cannot even reach the low bar of a Community College price the chance to pursue higher education at all. Then they have the chance to move onto that four-year degree.
#9 - You say Westly won't make the tough calls: This is kind of a gut issue. It's the way you feel, and I can't argue with that. I don't really feel the same way. He's taken a number of bold stands on social issues (being vocally pro-choice, being vocally pro gay rights) and says he'll do the same on fiscal ones, but that he wants to "Look under the couch cushions first" - my words, not his.
#10 - Angelides more aggressive and effective against Arnold: In my opinion, you're 25% right on this one. I think you're all wrong on the effective part and half-wrong on the aggressive part.
I know "electability" is a bad word. I would never, ever, ever base a vote solely on electability. However, in the case of Angelides and Westly, who are so close on nearly EVERY issue I will look at it. Check out the coverage of the debates. The one thing pretty much every single article said was that they were splitting hairs on everything because they were both so similar.
We've got two strong progressive Democrats with three differences
1. When to start raising taxes (Angelides says now, Westly says, "Let's get creative/innovative first...then we'll raise them if we have to.)
2. Environment (Angelides has been good SINCE HE STARTED RUNNING FOR OFFICE. Before that, his environmental record is pretty scary. I wonder if his "conviction" to green issues is politically motivated. Westly worked in a clean industry, and was engaged in renewable power as far back as the Carter administration.)
3. "Standing Up To Arnold" (I'll get to this one next..."
These guys are so close; in this case, I'll look at who'll win in the general. Poll after poll after poll, including the LA Times poll released today shows Westly does better. The new Times poll has Westly BEATING Arnold by TEN POINTS. That's huge. Every poll I've seen has shown Westly doing better against Arnold than Angelides.
This is the most important race in the country for 2006, if you ask me. Arnold is a huge Republican presence and Fund Raiser. He will be a mighty weapon as a GOP governor for the 2008 presidential if he gets through this year. We NEED to get rid of him. Westly is the man to do it.
So on your "effective against Arnold" point, I totally disagree and so do the numbers, time and again.
On your "aggressive against Arnold", I have my third major issue with Angelides. He is reflexively against Arnold. His biggest beef with Westly is when Westly supported two Propositions with Arnold in 2004. These Propositions were backed by many of the Angelides endorsers you mentioned (Boxer, Feinstein, Nunez, Pelosi). The Democratic Party backed them. The Democratic Legislature wrote them. The most telling thing to me is that they were back by both the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, who never agree on anything. To me, that indicates a good idea. Everyone was on board. Everyone except two people Phil Angelides and Tom McClintock. Senator McClintock is...well...we all know about McClintock. But why was Phil against them? He was posturing for his run for Governor.
If his big complaint is that Westly and Arnold worked together (along with almost the entire Democratic/Labor apparatus) to stop the state from going broke, while he (Angelides) was grandstanding for his own political benefit...I think that's a pretty bogus attack on Westly. I also think his reliance on being "The Anti-Arnold" is going to bite him in the ass now, with Arnold's numbers rebounding and the Governor and the Democratic Leadership out pushing a popular set of bonds to rebuild the state's infrastructure.
Phew! That was intense! I have never posted a comment like that before!
It feels good to talk about real issues (and the amazing number of similarities) between these candidates.
I think Westly and Angelides are very close on the issues. On almost EVERY issue. It's great to have two strong, progressive Democrats in the race. We'll be well represented on our values WHOEVER WINS...but Westly can win the general (the polls show this over and over) and without selling out Democratic principles. That's important to me, as I am sure it is to you.
Angelides has painted himself into a corner with his "Anti-Arnold" talk. He has drawn a target on himself with such strident calls for tax increases. I know they are targeted, but don't think that Arnold and his team (who are imported from the Bush/Cheney operation) will make their distinctions as they tear Phil apart.
I'm going for Westly. A progressive. A candidate who can win in the Primary AND in the General. A social liberal and fiscal moderate...and that is MODERATE, not conservative.
Thanks for opening this forum to post this comment. Let's keep the good debate going while the campaigns try to draw differences in their TV commercials!
Comments are closed on this story.