There were a few moments in the past two weeks in which it seemed as though state Treasurer Phil Angelides was finally about to put away the Democratic gubernatorial primary win which was long expected to go to him. Now, although his early endorsements by most of the Democratic establishment may yet win the nomination for him, he is scrambling to defend his environmental record against a barrage of TV attacks from Controller Steve Westly.
In cinematic ads featuring helicopter shots of Angelides developments, Westly scores the treasurer for his land developer days, criticizing him for violating the Clean Water Act, building on flood plains, and his close association with his longtime patron, Sacramento development kingpin Angelo Tsakopoulos.
Yesterday, Angelides’ campaign produced two events to counter Westly’s attacks against him.
First a conference call for selected reporters with U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. The senator’s first, very narrow, victory over Republican Bruce Herschensohn in 1992 was greatly aided by then state Democratic chairman Angelides’ mobilization of party resources on her behalf and by then state Democratic political director Bob Mulholland’s dramatic election eve confrontation of Herschensohn for patronizing a Hollywood strip club, the Seventh Veil. (Mulholland is a senior advisor to Angelides in this campaign.) Angelides publicly dismissed Mulholland for his “rogue” tactic on behalf of Boxer’s campaign, then brought him back right after the election.
Boxer, an environmentalist champion herself, insists that Angelides is good on the environment.
Then, after campaigning in San Diego with Teamsters and high school students, Angelides did a rather hastily scheduled afternoon event in Sacramento with longtime environmentalist supporters such as veteran Sierra Club lobbyist and renewable energy advocate V. John White.
The Sierra Club, which has endorsed both Angelides and Westly in this campaign, declined to endorse Angelides when he ran for state treasurer.
But in public office, Angelides has compiled a strong environmental record. He has especially pleased environmentalists by steering public pension funds into renewable energy and in-fill development projects. Now he has a raft of environmental endorsements, which he is brandishing against Westly’s attacks on his record as a land developer.
As he attempts to defend himself in events geared for the news media, which is not paying much attention, Angelides attacks Westly on the air with new TV advertising painting the controller as a “pay to play” politician soliciting contributions in exchange for public pension fund investments.
While both campaigns touted their openness through most of the campaign, both Angelides and Westly have become quite stealthy. Their negative ads are mostly not to be found on their campaign web sites, which once heralded the arrival of new campaign advertising.
Who is most happy about this campaign? The friends of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“We love this,” says one Schwarzenegger advisor who asks not to be named. “Here you have two guys who are little known and have less charisma. Instead of showing they are up to the job, they are introducing themselves to the public by smearing each other. Whichever one wins, Arnold goes up against a guy defined as a guy who wants to raise your taxes, bad on the environment, a crook.”
CORRECTION: Longtime Sierra Club contract lobbyist V. John White no longer lobbies for the organization. He was there wearing one of his other hats, that of California League of Conservation Voters board member.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Actually, Susan, the rule is very clear. If your principal purpose here is to advocate for a campaign, you use your full, real name and ID your association with a campaign, you are fine.
If I have to reveal who somebody is, as I’ve had to do with Mark Massara now several times, it is not fine.
I am sure you understand now.
PS: Susan Jordan, like Mark Massara, is with Coastal Advocates.
Incidentally, folks, I was happy that the flame wars had subsided and that they never happened last night.
And further, incidentally, Susan, this is not a chat room. This is my blog, where I write. The comments section is the tail. The caboose, if you will …
I am not happy with all the endless campaign comments. The only reason why the comments section might continue to allow campaign comments after the primary is that the Schwarzenegger campaign — unlike the two Democratic campaigns — has not gone nuts here. Westly with people using their real names. Angelides with a flood of fake handles. Both of them tire me.
White seems a lovely man. Did his wife work for Angelides or did she not?
Susan Jordan and Mark Massara are two very well respected environmentalists, and I think their perspectives are important. Especially because some people here have claimed that the environmentalists that support Angelides (which include both of them) have been co-opted, bought off, and bamboozled. So it’s necessary to hear from them.
It is all a question of people being properly identified when their principal purpose here is to advocate on behalf of a campaign. Mark came here for one reason. (Well, two, but closely related.
) To boost Phil Angelides and attack Garry South.
For some reason, a highly disproportionate number of Angelides campaigners and backers have insisted on trying not to identify themselves and their affiliation here.
As I have been demonstrating for many weeks now, that does not work.
And yet, when you properly identify yourself (and don’t act like a total jerk in posting), there is no problem.
I spend far too much time on this stuff.
Susan:
I meant no disrespect to Sara Wan or V. John White or any of the other fine environmentalists trotted out by the Angelides camp. I am sure they are absolutely wonderful people. And I have the utmost respect for them and their efforts to protect our environment.
But the fact is that everything we’ve said about Mr. Angelides’ environmental record is FACTUAL and has been widely reported in credible newspapers. And people need to know that despite the spin of Angelides surrogates, the man’s environmental record is just atrocious.
And the multitude of news reports and documented violations of the Clean Water Act trump the words/ spin of Angelides surrogates.
Instead of wasting your time attacking me for setting the record straight on Phil’s record, perhaps you should explain how you or any other environmental advocate could support a man who destroyed wetlands, vernal pools, and the habitats of endangered species, even after he was warned to stop by federal officials. You should not accept his lame defense that it was just a paperwork mixup. Californians deserve a better explanation for his actions than that.
And let’s not forget he is still making $1.65 million a year in outside income from some of these same developments, according to the San Francisco Chronicle and has been paid $488,000 from developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, since he was elected Treasurer.
Tsakopoulos has an even worse record on the environment than Angelides. And Angelides has taken millions and millions of dollars from him.
Mr. Angelides and his business partner and patron Angelo Tsakopoulos have done terrible things to California’s environment and the voters deserve to know about this so they can make an informed decision on Election Day.
Nick,
Because I live on the coast and care about the various environmental issues relating to it, I’ve had occasion to speak with environmentalists who support Angelides. I’ve not come away thinking they’ve turned a blind eye to Phil’s past as a developer. And I’ve heard nothing but respectful and admiring things said about Steve Westly.
You’re doing your job, but let’s not divide and conquer. There is alwasy the risk that attacks can go too far as they go on too long. I’d like to see you folks emphasize what Steve Westly would do differently for the environment as Governor. If Steve wins, he will need everybody’s support. And then some.
It should be noted that, fair or unfair, many of the environmental groups have endorsed, in some cases, campaigns around the state because one candidate is perceived as more liberal than the other. In other cases, the enviro groups are going with the person that is the likely winner in the primary. What puzzles me though is why some enviro groups jumped in so early, thus limiting their impact on the public without truly looking at the candidates and not, as some say, “turning a blind eye…” to past indiscretions.
And while I am inclined to agree with Ann that we should not divide and conquer, the problem is that enviro groups have done themselves a real disservice by using perception (of being a winner or the most liberal) rather than facts such as ability to govern, build consensus or create effective coalitions to pass a meaningful legislative package.
Again, fair or unfair, these groups chose Phil. Thats’ just the way it goes. And for anyone to say Phil is anti-environment is absolute crap. The guy has a good record with these groups. Yes, he was a developer that may have made some errors, but to stretch that out to say, in effect, he will gut the redwoods or kill coastline to build homes or commercial property is ludicrous. And the same goes for Steve Westly for that matter. Westly believes in the enviroment as much as Phil does (I bet his charitable donations reflect that). So, in short, we have two solid candidates for the environment….
But, in any political campaign, political and financial resources are limited. That’s why any group — labor, enviro, education, business — invest in a campaign, the idea is that they do so carefully with an eye toward the future legislative or other issue effort (cause isn’t that why you endorse a candidate anyway?). Every group, be it labor or otherwise, cannot invest in a candidate just based on perceptions — cause in this case, both candidates have pretty decent enviro records. More to the point, as I said, every group has finite resources, be they political or financial, and to spend them in a primary supporting one candidate or another leaves you with that much less in a general election when it really counts. More importantly, your impact is limited.
The Howard Dean debacle as the best example of groups, especially labor, who invested FAR TOO MUCH of their political capitol (and money) early in the presidential race. Everyone jumped in with both feet (and tons of money) just because Howard was perceived as the “progressive” candidate in the race. And with the media’s help, Dean had generated the most buzz so everyone anoints him the winner before any votes were cast (talk about lemmings running off the cliff right?). And everyone had John Kerry, et al, dead and buried. (Heck, even the Bushies were planning for Howard…)
As we all know, the result was a disastrous (read:pathetic) third-place finish with over $50 MILLION wasted. More importantly, it set the progressive movement back just as they were trying to re-emerge as political players. Frankly, had they kept their powder dry a little longer in the primary season, the impact would have certainly been greater later on in New Hampshire, South Carolina and in Super Tuesday.
Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying the early endorsement of Phil was a bad thing. What I am saying is that when groups invest in a primary, perception cannot and should not govern the investment of valuable financial or political resources. Because races get tight, mistakes are made and the future, to quote Yoda, is always in motion…
However, should the unexpected happen on election day, many of these same groups have to start all over again, buiild new bridges, sooth over hurt feelings and try to bring people together against a relatively-unified opposing party. Ad they have to do it in a very short timeframe…
CADTS (aka CG),
I don’t think the enviro groups will have much trouble supporting Westly should he win. Some folks are stepping up to defend Angelides, and while they may not like the Westly attacks (or Garry South), I haven’t heard them attack Steve Westly, his record, or his ideas.
So clearly there’s no need for the Westly campaign to denigrate the motives of those enviros who do support Angelides. And, as I said above, I hope they’ll quit that, and put some positive vibe back into their campaign.
CADTS/CG Says”Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying the early endorsement of Phil was a bad thing. ”
I am. I will say it. It was a very bad thing. They made a mistake . an honest mistake bit a mistake. Read the La Times and more importantly the Front Page story in te SAC BEE today…
I want some brave reporter to ask Gale Kaufman to be honest and tell us what she thinks about Mr. T’s 8.5 million buy of the Democratic primary…maybe CADTS/CG, you know Gale Kaufman, and you can ask her that question…and come back and tell us what Kaufman really thinks about this corrupt IE…That info would be far more important to those of us heading to the polls next week, especially those of us who are deeply concerned about land useage and water rights, than your DISINFORMATION you posted above about Arnold’s campaign and government staff.
Adam:
You are absolutely right … these groups won’t have a problem supporting Steve but can we be sure their support will be as vocal given that (1.) they spent all their energy backing Phil only to come up short; (2.) will things be said/done in the heat of battle in the next ten days that may not be forgiven so easily; (3.) In the short timeframe, those issues are often hard to overcome after a divisive primary.
And I absolutely agree with you that Westly’s folks should have the presence of mind to reach out NOW — in case they win — to reestablish relationships, mend fences, etc. etc. in order to make sure there are no lingering “issues.” I would hope that they have folks doing that now in a diplomatic and subtle fashion.
But I ask you to please re-read what I said…their support of Phil was NOT a bad thing necessarily — it was a choice they made at the time because they believed, again, at the time, it was the right one. And it may well be given the recent LA Times poll. And while no one can tell the future in politics (except for, as the record shows, Bill Bradley), I still believe that waiting for the proper moment to endorse is critical–because that moment can often determine the course of campaign and put an organization on a greater political footing for the future.
And, with your indulgence, I will anticipate the question of “so when is the proper time to endorse?” I think only an organization that uses its head, political senses and avoids choosing a candidate with its heart will know what that “time” is…
Prudence, not just perception, should govern an organization’s endorsement of any candidate.
CADTS,
You and I see eye-to-eye on this. No doubt Phil being the establishment candidate (ie: he got all the big elected officials behind him) influenced things a bit. So maybe you’re right that some backed him too early.
But then again, an enviro group committed to very specific principles doesn’t want to look like it’s got its finger in the wind, waiting to see who looks like the winner before jumping on the bandwagon (Westly pun intended).
Thanks Adam…I wanted to make sure my point was understood so I appreciate you rereading my post.
Barbara,
First, sorry for getting you so upset, offending you or stomping on an issue that is clearly personal to you. That is not my intent at all. As for the other issues, IE’s are part of political landscape–like it or not. Angelo has the right to do as he wishes with his money. If you are angry about it, call your legislator and do something about it — because after this election, I suspect you may get a very responsive audence. What I am trying to do is merely add another dimension to the discussion and maybe make a point that organizations should or should not invest based on criteria and not perception — thats it. I want groups who give a damn about average folks to have the same impact as an Angelo T. and his money does. Why, because its the right thing.
But organizations make choices based on ALOT of issues and concerns. Was it the right one? Who the hell knows. I guess we all find out on election day. Your opinion is both valid and reasonable…particularly if you are part of one of those organizations who may feel that they invested too early.
Clearly, all of that made you either upset or uncomfortable — so I apologize and will leave the topic alone.
And I am not spreading disinformation, I was asking a question that I clearly shouldn’t have at this point. More to the point, per Bill’s response, I let it go in the last post…
CADTS/Cg”First, sorry for getting you so upset,”
You do not upset me ….you AMUSE me…
Re: your remarks on the IE ….This is not an IE. This is the buying of the Democratic Primary by a man with a history of abuse in land useage and water rights of California .. it is of great concern and should be a concern to all Californians. The legislature can not do anything at the moment ..only Democrats especiallly, the environmentalists and organizations like ABC etc that have taken a position on campaign finance can do something right now …they need to speak up about Mr. T. his record as a developer , his role in this race.
You were spreading disinformation. EVERYONE likes our Susie, even this Schmidt and especially Arnold. In fact just recently I was thinking that I need to move Susie from my “players” column/list to my “Damon Runyon ” list…I think I will go and do that right now! …then ,I think I will add your name CG/CADTS to my “PLAYER” list…yep! That’s just what I am going to do. Toodles!
P.S. Don’t forget to ring up Kaufman and ask her what she really thinks about this so-called IE of Mr. T. We are all counting on you CG/CADTS to get us the nitty gritty!
So Nick V. writes:
“I meant no disrespect to Sara Wan or V. John White or any of the other fine environmentalists trotted out by the Angelides camp. I am sure they are absolutely wonderful people. And I have the utmost respect for them and their efforts to protect our environment.”
NIck, these people were not “trotted out” by the Angelides campaign – the only things that get “trotted out” are horses in bridles on lead lines. These people(and I was one of them) and the organizations they represent were outraged by the misrepresentations and false accusations in Westly’s advertising and ASKED what they could do to help set the record straight.
I don’t think you get how HIGHLY INSULTING it is for the Westly camp to try to tell the major environmental organizations in CA who are able to endorse in elections (mine is not one) WHO the GREENER candidate is. These organizations don’t give endorsements lightly because their ‘currency,’ if you will, is their word – they don’t have money to spend on advertisements to correct misleading ads. And their members rely on them for guidance.
These organizations researched Westly’s accusations thoroughly BEFORE they made their endorsements – in some cases because the false charges later contained in the advertising were given to them BEFOREHAND by the Westly camp in an attempt to influence their endorsement. They still voted to endorse Angelides, even at a time when polls said that Westly was in the lead. That, alone, should tell you something.
It didn’t have to go to this place on the environment. It went there because the Westly campaign made a clear decision to jump in the gutter first. And when you do that, everyone gets covered in mud – including your candidate.
This is not about who is greener right now, it is irrelevant …unfortunately, it is about Mr. T his record has a developer, his role in this primary , his hold on Angelides…that is what you honestly have to discuss and look your rank and file in the eye and explain to us how you can stomache all this!…
This is ridiculous. Angelides failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement when he ran for state treasurer because of his record as a developer. Don’t try to pave the truth over.
Wow, I am glad I amuse Barbara….I like to think I perform a public service for lucky souls like you. But clearly I upset you for you to issue two angry posts — so again, I apologize for offending your obviously delicate sensibilities on such personal issues.
But I can’t speak to what Angelides has or hasn’t done — thats for the voters to decide and they will. More to the point, Angelo T. may be trying to buy the election — but hey, thats his right. Some would argue Steve is doing the same as will the Governor if things get tight. But Barbara, try to give the voters a little credit to know who is blowing smoke up their collective tuckus’ — while that may take some time (see last November for the Governor), the funny thing about democracy is that people do come ’round.
To some degree, I find myself in accordance with what you say about groups making too early a decision. So, AGAIN, my point is simple: groups need to, I believe, make decisions with prudence, not perception. I know I am repeating myself, but its clear you are missing my point. I want the field level for all players — and I think groups who wait to endorse until they can help tip the balance and make a real impact for their issues MAY benefit more in the process that follows campaigns — you and I know it as the legislative process, which I gather you have more than a passing knowledge of…
BTW, I find it ironic that you are going after me for spreading supposed “disinformation” about Arnold when the right wing has been subtly and not-so-subtly beating down YOUR Susan Kennedy since she started her job. To emphasize my listen to some CD’s of the Eric Hogue Show (or whatever right wing numbskull you fancy) and listen carefully. Cause IF the Reeps start losing this election, don’t you doubt for a darn moment the first person the right wingers/Eric Hogue’s/money people/Orange County conservatives take out to verbally flog in the public arena will be Susan — not Steve Schmidt, et al. For you to think there isn’t at least the potential for this problem, you are terribly naive. THAT was the point of my post…and I said I was done with that. One other thing, WHY do you care — unless you work for the Governor or support him and are afraid of the Dems. Do you honestly think the Governor will stand against developers with a “history of abuse in land useage and water rights of California.” My guess is sadly, no.
Susan:
Allow me to respond to your last post:
“Federal officials…thought Angelides did his own damage to the property. In 1987, they found he filled in wetlands and rare vernal pool habitat in violation of the federal Clean Water Act, records show.” [Sacramento Bee, 2-19-06]
“After warning River West repeatedly that its work was in violation of federal law, the corps spelled it out in an Aug. 31, 1987, letter. The agency wrote that River West ‘should stop work in waters of the United States immediately to avoid further violations of the Act.’ River West did not stop…. Despite being told its work was illegal, Angelides’ company continued ‘discharging riprap from dump trucks into waters of the United States,’ according to a subsequent EPA review. On another occasion, EPA observers noted that ‘earth was distributed with bulldozers in waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands and vernal pools.’ That led the EPA to impose a stop-work order on Oct. 15, 1987, with a threat of civil and criminal penalties if work persisted.” [Sacramento Bee, 2-19-06]
“Angelides pushed hard for a habitat conservation plan that was opposed by environmental groups and later overturned by a federal judge…. Environmentalists opposed the plan, saying it would not protect Swainson’s hawk and garter snake populations…. Environmentalists involved still accuse Angelides of ramming through the plan with little regard for criticism.” [Sacramento Bee, 2-19-06]
In a 1994 news article, Angelides “…acknowledged to local environmentalists that he had spent little time in the past considering the effects of his developments.” [Gary Delsohn, The American Planning Association; Planning, February, 1994]
“Until he was elected state treasurer in 1998, Angelides, 52, was the junior business partner to one of the most powerful men in California…Angelo Tsakopoulos. In 1984, Angelides became president of Tsakopoulos’ AKT Development Corp. He soon started his own development company, River West, and entered into a series of enduring real estate partnerships with Tsakopoulos, who is his financial and political godfather. Together, they have made a fortune paving over thousands of acres of wetlands inside the Sacramento sprawl. [Silicon Valley Metro, January 18, 2006]
“Other area environmentalists say Angelides promoted sprawl. They recount incidents in his past that give them pause, from the destruction of vernal pools in Lexington Hills to what they see as his less-than-heroic efforts to protect threatened species.” [Sacramento Bee, February 19, 2006]
“Longtime local environmental activist Vicki Lee said some of the stumbles and developments have achieved just the opposite of the “smart growth” that Angelides had embraced. ‘[Angelides] has definitely contributed to the sprawl problem in this community, using his wiles and his connections to just wedge little projects and big projects in places that were premature and simply bad judgment…I live in this town, there’s sprawl everywhere and that’s Phil’s legacy from before he was treasurer.’ Angelides bristles at the criticism but does not deny it.” [Sacramento Bee, April 11, 2005]
“In November 1999, [Angelo] Tsakopoulos was fined $500,000 and ordered to restore 4 acres of wetlands after a U.S. District Court found him guilty of 358 violations of the Clean Water Act. The court said he had damaged or destroyed environmentally sensitive wetlands on his ranch by deeply plowing them and filling them in to prepare the land for a vineyard.” [Sacramento Business Journal, July 6, 2001]
“[Water] Board staff alleges that Tsakopoulos’ AKT Development allowed an estimated 5.9 million gallons of sediment and chemical-laden storm water to flow from the Anatolia construction site into the Morrison Creek tributary, which harbors the endangered tadpole shrimp. Brown water and dirt clumped by chemicals was observed in a nearly mile-long stretch of the tributary, according to the board staff. The complaint includes numerous photos of the runoff.” [Sacramento Bee, August 16, 2003]
“Environmental Protection Agency documents show that in the summer of 1987, Angelides’ River West Developments filled and graded 21 acres of federally protected wetlands at Lexington Hills.” [Sacramento Bee, February 19, 2006]
Tell me Susan, which of our claims is false?
wow…I thought Babsie and I were fun in this post…we have been surpassed…
Sweetie, don’t try to play ping pong mind games with me …I’m BARBARA…I am also a horseback rider, I was trained by my Dad very early on that when you see a rattle snake you give it wide berth. So for the last time toodles!
P.S. You are correct. I am not happy about Mr T, his land grabs, his role in this race or his hold on Angelides …. and you will seein this coming week ,I am not the only one not happy…
Mr. Velasquez -
As I said a long time back: Decaf! Try it, try it, you’ll like it you see.
And watch out! As I learned last night, if your message is too long you risk a lecture from the CYD’s own Brian VanRiper.
I’m truly, truly glad you are going after this “I”E thing. I watch money and politics. It’s something I care about deeply. It’s a root cause of so many other problems across the board. Angelo’s gubernatorial gift to his conjoined twin Angelides pisses me off. But don’t do so at the expense of your guy’s future relationship with the enviros.
Susan is either A) honestly expressing remorse from the green community about where this has gone or B) guilting you into stopping because the enviros have sold out a little on this one and have peeked around the blinders enough to see what they did.
For the record, I think it’s probably closer to A than to B.
So, while I don’t doubt the accuracy of your evidence (like polling, it’s about the pattern anyway!), take it down a knoch with the fact boxes! It’s not like the truth matters in politics, anyway! It’s all perception.
I can’t remember who told me that. But they were largely right.
Tommy Boy:
“Fact Boxes” prove necessary when a blogger is challenging the veracity of one’s claims.
I’ll leave it up to site visitors whom to trust…Angelides surrogates, or the Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle.
Dear Nick,
It is not my job to respond to every newspaper quotation or letter excerpt you pull out of context and throw up on the wall. As I said in one of my earlier posts, the response of VTC, CLCV and others to some of the accusations in the Westly ads can be found at http://www.votethecoast.org.
I know it was hard not to get these groups’ endorsements for your candidate but their choice was not just based on one’s past record but on one’s ability to grasp the nuance of existing environmental challenges and formulate forward thinking solutions that could be implemented during one’s term(s) as the next Governor.
Months ago when one of Westly’s reps called me and asked me to provide feedback on which important coastal issues were likely to be raised during the upcoming endorsements process, I responded forthrightly and at some length. But, from what I have heard, the people who actually participated in the interviews felt that there was no contest when it came down to understanding the issues and articulating how they would be addressed if one became Governor.
My personal decision on who to endorse was based, in large part, on my direct experience in working on Liquefied Natural Gas over a period of more than two years. That did not keep me from sharing with his rep what I felt Westly needed to be aware of on this important issue since he has an imminent and significant role to play given his existing seat on the State Lands Commission.
Everyone hates to see two DEMS go at it when the problem we all face is how to get rid of the bigger problem now sitting in the Governor’s office. I still believe that there was a way to keep the tone of the campaign positive without trying to savage the opponent, especially on the issue of the environment. But perhaps I am still, after all these years in the trenches, a bit naive.
Have a great Memorial Day and enjoy the beautiful weather and sunshine.
That is classic spin from an Angelides apologist who tried to pave over the truth that Angelides failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement running for state treasurer against a right-wing Republican because of his record as a developer.
Ann, why don’t you pay attention to what Susan Jordan wrote instead of firing off your knee-jerk insults.
It’s not just about the past. These enviro groups do interviews and make decisions based on who better understands the key issues and who has better plans. That’s about now and about the future. It would not come as a surprise to anyone to learn than Angelides has a better grasp on such issues.
People should not let their visceral dislike of Phil Angelides carry them into denigrating those who support him.
You are missing my point and Susan Jordan is deliberately evading my point.
Angelides failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement when he ran for state treasurer because of his record as a developer.
Velasquez calls her on her assertion that the Westly attacks on Angelides’ developer record are FALSE. She refuses to answer his points. That is because she is an apologist for him.
Ann wrote: “That is classic spin from an Angelides apologist who tried to pave over the truth that Angelides failed to get the Sierra Club endorsement running for state treasurer against a right-wing Republican because of his record as a developer.”
Ann, I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about here. Perhaps you have me mistaken with someone else since I have not ever addressed the issue you raise in any forum, much less this one. Further, I have no idea if your assertion regarding the SC endorsement in a past race is accurate or not. However, it seems ironic then that Angelides’ record as a developer did not keep the SC from giving a dual endorsement in this DEM primary. Seems if SC was so concerned at THIS point in time about his record as a developer, that they would have done a sole endorsement which they did not, as we all know.
In fact, here is what SC said about THIS race and the two candidates:
________________
SC PRESS RELEASE: SIERRA CLUB ENDORSES ANGELIDES AND WESTLY FOR GOVERNOR
“Sierra Club California announced today the endorsement of State Treasurer Phil Angelides and State Controller Steve Westly in this year’s gubernatorial election. “We are convinced that either the Treasurer or the Controller would be the greenest governor California has ever had,” said Alan Carlton, Chair of Sierra Club California. “Both of the them have used their current statewide positions in innovative ways to safeguard our state’s air, water, coast and natural resources,” Carlton added.”
___________________
In my previous post, as Adam said, I was simply trying to point out what factors into the environmental endorsement process and that the past, present and future are all part of it. (Thank you, Adam, for clarifying the content of my post.)
Finally, as I have pointed out several times now, VTC has posted a response on some of the allegations in the the ads which includes a letter signed by CLCV, VTC, myself and Larry Fahn, immediate past President of the national Sierra Club. Again, the address is http://www.votethecoast.org.
Noone is saying any candidate is perfect. You have your preferences. I have mine. That does not make either of us an ‘apologist.’ I assume you hold your convictions as strongly as I hold mine and I see no need to attack anyone for their position on either candidate.
Have a good Memorial Day. It is clear to me that none of us are getting enough sunshine.
Just so all of you know, Susan Jordan was at the CLVC debate acting as an Angelides surrogate and attack dog, along with Sara Wan. I’m sure both have been promised big enviro jobs in the (never-to-be) Angelides administration. They were both sitting in the press viewing room at the debate bellowing about how all of the Westly enviro charges against Angelides were false. Wan even loudly denied to me that Angelides was complaining about tax credits for dairies that Westly suppoesdly supported during the whole debate (to the point of the audience developing lactose intolerance!) because Angelides had made the decision to go in the direction of the waste haulers because there is more emoney there. If you doubt me, check his contributions from every waste hauler in the Western Hemisphere. BTW, most of the reporters at the debate thought Wan was beyond obnoxious — and Susan Jordan only a mite less so. They weren’t even classy enough to spin with a modicum of a sense of humor. Plus, they were attacking me personally before I even got in the room. I had to laugh when Susan Jordan was particularly incensed after I asked them both who they were, since I honestly didn’t recognize either one of them. The two of them could dish it out, but not take it. (Come to think of it, sounds like the whole Angelides operation.)
So basically, Garry, if Westly wins next week, you don’t really want the active support of the enviros who are backing Angelides. Because this scorched earth approach seems like a bad way to go. Is it really in the best interest of your candidate to attack these folks? And isn’t it just a personal thing between you and them over your work with JobsPac?
C’mon, man. Step out of the darkness already. Give us a little hope and sunshine after 3 weeks of mud and bad press for both campaigns. Really.
PS: I know that scorched earth remark is a mere straight line for you.
Adam…are you now going back on your previous statement..”I don’t think the enviro groups will have much trouble supporting Westly should he win. Some folks are stepping up to defend Angelides, and while they may not like the Westly attacks (or Garry South), I haven’t heard them attack Steve Westly, his record, or his ideas.”
See, Arnold will be no better and in fact, worse for the environment. And it goes back to my original point, a group cannot go on perception alone as, by and large, the enviros have done in this case (and in other campaigns ’round our little corner of paradise).
And for a little bit more reality, the enviros went with Phil, for the most part, because he is perceived as the most liberal candidate. But as we can tell, he doesn’t exactly have a sparkling clean enviro record either (thanks Angelo, we love ya buddy!!). However, as I said previously, with Phil as Governor, I don’t see him letting Angelo T. gut the redwoods to build a housing development or kill more of the coastline to build a resort. Arnold would — but Phil or Steve wouldn’t.
As for attacking Steve, I think there might be some veracity to Garry’s statement, much as you might not like it. Having encountered Sara Wan before, I know her to be brilliant, committed, volatile and a little crazy in support of the Cause (not that its bad). Sara is the type to go on the attack if she feels back into the corner with information that she knows full well to be correct.
Its kinda like knowing Bonds took steroids but ya really wanna see him pass the Babe anyway — and like any good Giants fan, you defend him no matter what (cause, as Giants fans say, “the Babe was no paragon of virtue either.”). And yet, there is that lingering doubt in the back of your mind that says, “did Barry really cheat”. If we correlate that to the enviros decision-making process for Phil, you have to wonder if there is some hand-wringing and not the growing voice of concern in a collective enviromental head asking themselves, “lord love a duck, did we/I make the wrong call here…” Then realizing you may have to live with that decision, good or bad, for the next four years.
But this is what I am also talking about when it comes to things said in the heat of battle…when people pop off, they better have a purpose and a logical reason. And a reason/defense is not because you backed a guy who you belatedly realize ain’t a saint and it pisses you off a little. Cause the long-term damage in a high-level campaign can be devastating…both to the campaign who wins (if it ain’t your guy) and to the organization as a whole.
Honestly, Sara is famous for popping off or getting angry if you tell her she is wrong (or if she knows she is wrong) and feels back into a corner. Listen, for a person who has spent the last 40 plus years in California, she still often acts and sounds like where she is from, the great, wonderful and special working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn, NY (or is it New Jersey, I can never remember). That means she is a fighter you want in the foxhole with you. But it also means she takes it too far to in her defense of candidates VtheC backs. I also think it has limited her judgement in terms of candidates to support and, should Phil lose, limits the effectiveness of her organization’s members and message in the general — cause they have to start all over again with a campaign that feels it was wronged.
If I were Phil, I would step out in front of the Westly folks and talk about the issue — don’t duck it cause the attack is pretty darn devastating if you have seen the ad.
BTW, and this goes for both groups and campaigns, I think that if a group gives an endorsement in a heated primary (something you should only do if you are absolutely sure its the right thing)– the wise thing to do is to immediately reach out to the other guy, explain why it went down this way and say simply, “we aren’t going to bash your head in…” and, should you win, our support and a check will be forthcoming. As for candidates, the smart thing to do is be gracious in defeat and, if you win, get your happy ass on the phone immediately, remind them they are now the candidate and ASK, not demand, their help.
And that my friends, is Campaign 101. Thanks for having me! You have been a great audience, drive safe and please don’t forget to tip your blog master, Bill ” I know a spinner when I see one” Bradley.
To Mr. South,
Yes, I was at the CLCV debate in the press room as were you along with the people who it was reported the Westly camp FLEW DOWN FROM SACRAMENTO to be his ‘attack dogs and surrogates.’ See the SJMercury News article and several others. BTW, I drove down from the Central coast on my own dime and gladly so.
It was the first time I had the ‘pleasure’ of watching you in action. Frankly, I was astounded at the manner in which you behaved – the one ‘bellowing’ LOUDEST in that small room was you in a manner I will not repeat in this space since it was so incredibly offensive and disrespectful and it started well before the debate. I think, perhaps, that you have either lost perspective regarding your public behavior or you do it deliberately to attempt to dominate the room. Either way, perhaps you do it because you think it is effective. And, I was glad I got the chance to witness it firsthand.
And to set the record straight, I was not offended by your question asking me who I was. I was offended by the manner in which you asked it as if you were the only person who had the right to be in that room – as if you owned it. Well, newsflash, we all had a right to be there and speak on behalf of who we believe in. But, as I recall, you are being paid and I am NOT.
Second, I have NEVER discussed working in any future adminstration should the Treasurer be elected. So stop slinging BS and casting aspersions to try to elevate your candidate when you don’t have the facts and you certainly have no proof, since there is none. Simply put, your assertion that I have been promised a ‘big enviro job’ is an OUTRIGHT LIE, but that apparently has never stopped you from making false accusations before or NOW.
This is classic ‘Garry South,’ spreading rumors and innuendo because you are never held accountable.
What I would rather talk about is the work you did for the JobsPac/REEP team in 2004. Heck, if you can reach back to the 80′s and 90′s, we should be able to talk about what you tried to do to DEMS in 2004 – a mere two years ago. Just why did you go to work for JobsPac/REEP team in 2004? Why, as part of the JobsPac/REEP team did you attack coastal DEMS in the 2004 general election? Please explain how you thought it would benefit CA to have REEPS in important and historically DEM coastal seats? And, finally, please explain how you justified having your personal paycheck paid, in part, by the oil companies – who as you said in a previous post, are the same companies that ‘want to drill off our coast.’
Still waiting for your explanation…..
Susan, you’re funny! Talk about the lady protesting too much. So now it all urps out, this is really all about what you think/claim I did with JobsPAC (and your husband) in ’04? Maybe what we should talk about is your work as a member of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and some of the votes you cast for developers who contributed to your husband’s campaign. (No wonder you — or he — haven’t said a peep about one of the biggest, dirtiest developers in the state bankrolling your enviro-hero Angelides’ campaign.) Grow up. If you want to play in the big leagues, act like a big leaguer. You’re acting like bratty, bawling little leaguer.
Some of the rank and file want an explanation too!…Larry Fawn grew up in Sacto county …with Phil and Mr. T’s kids… perhaps he should have recused himself from any type of public support/endorsement process…especially since it appears SC leadership is turning a blind eye to what is going on in Placer County!!! which is truly a scandal! (I am of course referring to Bee’s article of yesterday)
We have always known what Mr. T is about as a developer…we have all been fighting him for years…so now “leadership” is telling rank and file you are NOT THE LEAST BIT TROUBLED by this so-called IE, and the potential for enormous trouble ahead in regard to land useage and water rights in a Phil Angelides GUV Admin…I just came back from trail riding in Placer County…I am one of 6 women are amount to resign membership and finanial support for SC…We are very disappointed in the silence on the potential danger of Mr. T and this 8.5 million $ IE…Placer County is ONLY the Beginning …that’s what 6 cowgirls discussed today…
Mr. South,
I’m happy to talk about my work on the Planning Commission as soon as you answer my questions about your involvement in JobsPac in 2004 and why you did it. You haven’t anwered, yet. What you did, instead, was to raise yet more false accusations with no proof. False accusations work some of the time but it occurs to me that you need a new tool in the old toolbox.
Did you explain what impact your role at JobsPac in 2004 would have had on DEMS, in particular coastal DEMS? Again, the answer is no.
And while we’re at it, what do JobsPac, Garry South and the Governor’s consultant and confidant Mike Murphy have in common- besides being paid by the oil companies to attack California Dems?
Mr. South, were you sitting at the right hand of Mr. Murphy when the misleading ads, preying on the racist fears of voters, claiming Fresno’s Juan Arambula was an agent for a foreign government, were designed?
Were you at the table when the visuals showing men climbing over a border fence were broadcast in a failed effort to derail San Diego Democrat Lorie Saldana’s election?
When the Latino Caucus held a press conference on the steps of the Capitol to condemn JobsPac/REEPS and their racist propaganda, did you return the money you received for your work on the JobsPac/REEP’s team?
How big a paycheck did you receive for the application of your talent to the intended destruction of Democratic candidates in 2004?
Let’s not be anti-feminist: me thinks the man doth protest too much.
Oh dear…not good…Warren Beatty is not going to be happy.
I getting confused …Where’s Sooth?
I bet he is at the X-Men Film…
Oh, Susan, you’re such a hypocritical phony. If Angelides were the Democratic nominee, and a single developer with Tsakopoulos’ terrible environmental record — and the same sort of long-time connections to the candidate — were doing a $9 million so-called “independent” expenditure an Arnold’s behalf, and 47% of Arnold’s money came from developers, you and your traveling buddy Sara Wan would be running all over the state in righteous indignation, denouncing the IE, demanding that the IE stop, and raging about what all that development money was going to buy. But because it’s being done on behalf of your fair-haired friend Phil, not a peep. Again, you’re a phony of the worst sort. When you utter a word publicly about all of Angelides’ absolutely unprecedented developer money in the current campaign, then we’ll talk about other things in the past.
BTW, Susan, you’ve now posted six times on this blog, but have not yet been forthright enough to reveal that you are actually married to Assemblyman Julian Nava from Santa Barbara. In case you didn’t know, I was forthright enough to schedule an appointment with your husband last summer in his Capitol office to explain to him face-to-face what my role was/was not in the ’04 IEs you keep harping about. He wasn’t happy, but seemed pleased I had been man enough to meet with him and try to clear the air, and we parted on amicable terms. (His chief of staff, who is an old friend of mine, sat through the entire meeting.) I wonder, is he asking you to re-open and re-litigate this issue in the blogosphere and in the mail — or, as I suspect, are you using it as just another phony reason why you are supporting a long-time developer, who is himself a wholly owned subsidiary of the development community, as the best environmental candidate for governor? I bet inquiring minds might want to know.
Susan Jordan has never answered the question about Angelides’ land development background. She would rather pretend ignorance in pretending not to know that Angelides failed to win the Sierra Club endorsement running for state treasurer against a right wing Republican than try to answer the charges. Because they are true.
How can she have any credibility in presenting herself as an informed judge of Angelides’ environmental record when she claims she does not know that the Sierra Club refused to endorse him when he ran for state treasurer in 1994? This is an embarrassing and ridiculous display.
I want to know how Susan Jordan as a supposed pure-hearted environmentalist can sit there and ignore that her candidate Angelides is owned by one of the most notorious developers in California.
Sorry to be so late in responding – Memorial Day, family and all.
Mr. South,
Just for the record, my husband’s name is PEDRO Nava, not JULIAN Nava. Kind of surprised that noone picked that up (except Mr. Bradley.) Hmmm…..
To Ann:
As for a failure to get an endorsement from the SC in 1994 – 12 years ago – all I have to say is ‘what a difference a day (decade+’) makes. Let’s see. Is there anything, anything at all, that you did 12 years ago that could be misinterpreted or misrepresented or that you perhaps learned from? First rock at the glass house wins… or loses.
To All:
If anyone wants to look at my credentials, what I do and my record, feel free to google away with my name and the word coastal or LNG and you should find info on just about every project I have ever worked on – not working FOR developers but AGAINST them. A fact I am sure Mr. South is very well aware of.
My last response is that I wish Garry, who is obviously intelligent, could find it within himself to stop slinging false insults and allegations at hard working environmentalists. You might not agree with who they (or I) support, but your anger, uncouth behavior and attacks are really uncalled for. So, we’re backing a different horse in the primary. Live with it.
Oddly enough, while I (and others) made a decision to endorse a different candidate, I would not ever have ever, on first glance, associated Steve Westly with this kind of behavior. On the occasions I have met him, he struck me as somewhat refined, calm, and reserved, even if unfocused or unprepared on the details of the particular issue in question. But he did not strike me as one given to raging, aggressive outbursts, loose on the facts, and short on the fuse. Till now. I guess you call that guilt by association or paycheck or attack ads.
I think I am speak for alot of people who are starting to say: If you can’t make your case in a positive way, then what do you have going for you besides a trunkful of negative ads. And you know what? I am looking for a whole lot more in the next Governor.
In closing, I probably can’t get back here for at least several days, if ever – (work calls and the oil/LNG companies don’t ever rest) – so have fun.
Susan,
Just to be clear…my complaint is not that you and other Enviros endorsed Phil. It happened BEFORE the so-called I.E. I use “so-called” because by any definition this is not an independent expenditure. Mr T. is an issue…for all of you to pretend he is not is very disturbing to those of us who pay our yearly memberships to enviro organizations and donate to enviromental causes. I am not a Angelides, but I know people who are single issue only and that issue is enviro and planned to vote for him in part because of eviro endorsements …they have changed their minds as to who they are voting for this week because of this issue. No One expects any of you to pull the endorsement or say you made a mistake but instead, to openly say what everyone in the enviro community is saying privately, this I.E. is troubling because of Mr. T.’s history as a developer…we need Mr. Angelides to hear that publically before next Tuesday from our leadership. We need to know that you are NOT just there for Angelides but for us and for our cause. Right now all of you look very self-serving. It is very disappointing.
must have been a great meeting with Nava if you couldn’t even remember his first name, garry.
cool site…
check this out: http://www.aspectinformation.info/ 58…
JULIAN Nava, as you may or may not know, was a well-known Latino educator, Mike.
Getting names slightly wrong is an occupational hazard in politics.
In real, as distinguished from virtual, life, I get people’s names wrong all the time. And a lot more than slightly.
That’s why I seem so friendly at times. “Hi, how ya doin’? It’s great to see ya!” (Jesus, what IS this person’s name again?)
shoemoney…
nice shoemoney site at shoemoney http://www.imyourhuckleberry.info/ 59…
i know who julian nava is, bill. and just so we’re all above board here, i was nava’s consultant for his 2004 election.
my point is, as i’m sure you know, that garry never really patched things up with pedro after helping craft an attack campaign that falsely claimed pedro supported driver licenses for “illegals.” we can all read into the code there whether we know who julian nava is or not.
so to let him allege that on this board is more of a breach of honesty than simply forgetting a name.
Dave…
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…