The LA Weekly has endorsed state Controller Steve Westly in the Democratic primary for Governor of California.
To date, in terms of newspaper endorsements, state Treasurer Phil Angelides has won the endorsements of only the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Virtually every other newspaper endorsement has gone to Westly. The Angelides campaign had expected the endorsement of the LA Weekly, one of the most reliably left-liberal and highly partisan papers in the country.
The paper had previously endorsed, as reported, former Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown for state attorney general. Other endorsements include state Senator Jackie Speier for lieutenant governor, state Senator Joe Dunn for state controller, state Senator Debra Bowen for secretary of state, and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer for state treasurer.
The paper declined to endorse U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein in her race for re-election, protesting her early stance on the Iraq War and other liberal concerns. And Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, once an early favorite of the paper in his race for governor in the 2003 recall, also went un-endorsed in his unopposed race for the Democratic nomination for state insurance commissioner, though the paper could not bring itself to endorse his moderate Republican opponent, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Poizner. The paper also urges a Yes vote on Proposition 82, controversial movie director Rob Reiner‘s tax-the-rich for universal preschool initiative.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
To be fair, Bill, it’s not exactly a rave for Westly.
Most of the endorsement is scathing for both campaigns, which makes the disappointment
and disgust near unanimous. Seems like they went for Westly for much the same reason I and others will: he seems like the nicer and less partisan guy.
And as the polls show consistently at this point, the candidate who can beat Arnold in the General is Westly.
To be fair, Adam, I expected through most of this year that the Weekly would endorse Angelides. My discovery of Westly’s potential was not met with universal praise. It was only somewhat more popular than my going after Rob Reiner.
But if you want to pooh-pooh a bunch of people well to my knee-jerk left — and of course I say that with the greatest affection — endorsing the centrist candidate in the race, that is of course your right.
” But we want a candidate with more signs of possessing a soul.”
They got it right about this and this is very important! …especially to so many women.. I think …I hope, women voters will vote overwhelmingly for him in the primary. This “soulfulness” and women voters are also the key to defeating Arnold in the fall….he is serious, sunny and he does “show signs of possessing a soul.”..and let’s not forget he likes to talk and shop ! as he told you, Mr. Bradley! when the two of you stomped around together in N. Ca hinterland last Jan? or Feb? in the rain!….That seems so long ago!
I’m not pooh-poohing the LA Weekly, I was merely pointing out that their endorsement is—as most for both have been—underwhelming. I’m glad they endorsed Westly. Who wrote it?
BTW, Angelides was also endorsed by the SF Bay Guardian.
Of course you were pooh-poohing it. The endorsement, made entirely by people to the left of me and, perhaps, you, was underwhelming but decisive in its dismissal of the much more overtly liberal candidate. Who was backed all out by the paper’s longtime political editor, Harold Meyerson, who penned that nasty “Cavity” column on Westly that all Phil’s Young Democrats kept circulating.
The editorial is unsigned.
Yes, I know the SF Bay Guardian, an extremely kneejerk lefty paper, endorsed Angelides and noted that fact. The San Francisco Chronicle, a quite liberal newspaper I read more frequently, endorsed Westly. Which was also something of a surprise.
Westly is a soul man…I like it!
I’m happy to see them endorse Speier too, and to dis Bustamante—well done.
“We like the way he told us that he wished he had participated in the May 1 immigration-rights demonstration in Los Angeles. In contrast, Angelides says he did not participate in the demonstration because it was for the people — not politicians.”
This is very revealing how each of them looked at this event …it says something very important about each man. I think it is a very important endorsement for a Democratic primary race. I am very happy.
I can reveal now that I was under the impression that Westly was going to participate in the May 1st demonstration.
As readers know, I have serious concerns about potential backlashes around illegal immigration and about the possible ill effects of unlimited immigration. I saw what it did to the farm workers union, for example.
But clearly we cannot evict millions of people who have productive lives here from America. This is not that kind of country. Clearly we have to find ways to allow and accommodate a controlled flow of people into this country to take on jobs that would otherwise go wanting. And clearly we need to find more effective ways to secure our borders. Without establishing a Berlin Wall.
Carole,
Steve Westly is SERIOUS YET SUNNY AND HE HAS A SOUL …doesn’t it sound wonderful!
and he is sooooo “SMOOTH” don’t forget my Santana theme song!
And He has Mr. South ! another “S” word… !!!!
To be fair, the LA Weekly editorial should not have equated Angelides’ recent campaign tactics and advertising with the infamous Roberti hit piece. The difference between then and now is by an order of magnitude. Besides, they have it wrong about Roberti anyway. He wasn’t a “no” vote on abortion rights issues during his tenure.
TO MY UTTER LACK OF SURPRISE, THERE IS YET ANOTHER SOPHOMORIC ATTEMPT BY AN UNACKNOWLEDGED ANGELIDES CAMPAIGN SHILL TO POST PROPAGANDA HERE.
READ MY LIPS, SPORT.
REAL NAME. FULL NAME. RELEVANT ASSOCIATIONS.
THEN YOU CAN POST.
WHEN SPIN IS YOUR PRINCIPAL PURPOSE, THAT IS THE RULE.
PLAY SILLY GAMES. GET ZAPPED.
CAPISCE?
Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, I am obviously not referring to Hap Hazard there.
Barbara & Adam,
Wow! Wonderful article! What a night, watched a Redford movie and will toast you all with a nice glass of wine!
See, that’s why I alway feel this strange compulsion to be fair to Angelides because with the exception of a few noted enviros (who I like very much), it seems the only Angelides supporters who dare to post here are anonymous shills and subliterate Young Dems.
But you see this is what is so bizarre about the situation in this campaign.
As you know, I am fine with people posting whatever they want, within obvious reason.
But there is some odd compulsion to play sneaky little games with my blog.
If anyone imagines that this is a good idea, I assure you it is not.
Just as it is not a good idea to refuse to answer obvious questions and then give me a lot of of attitude and act like it is a gotcha game.
It is not a gotcha game to ask a candidate who says he has an exact plan to raise taxes and close loopholes to spell out what that exact plan is.
Maybe in a down ballot race. But this is not a down ballot race.
It’s Bob Mulholland and his fondness for fraternity style antics, no?
Well, at least the Fat Cat is somewhat amusing, though it makes you wince to think that a highly paid grown man sat around and planned such a thing.
Bob is a very old friend of mine. But there are some very big-time Democrats who have come to me over the years and asked how that streak can be brought under control.
You know, we did not speak for about a year after he sicced a bunch of labor folks to shout down Maria Shriver with bullhorns during the recall when she was trying to register voters.
This is the niece of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, whose crime was that her moderate Republican husband was running to replace Gray Davis as governor.
I called a number of Democrats, including the then governor of California, about this, and all agreed that this behavior was way out of bounds.
Yet when a very knowledgeable Democratic operative decided to post here, repeatedly attacking Bob Mulholland and Cathy Calfo, after deleting several posts I strongly suggested to this person that it was time to move along.
I have also told Garry South from time to time that he should cool it, and have deleted a few of his posts. He takes it pretty well. But as long as he stays within obvious but liberal limits, and is properly identified …
You know, I was somewhat mortified in the early days of this blog — which means a few months ago — that hardly anyone was posting in the comments section. Now I have an … opposite reaction at times.
I believe that it is precisely this perspective and obvious integrity, not the foibles of Rob Reiner, Phil Angelides, Steve Westly, or any of their consultants, that has kept the website hits coming here at NWN.
Thank you Bill for giving us a chance to express ourselves:)
Incidentally, as discerning readers know, you should not assume that I support Steve Westly for governor.
And, incidentally, two more mysterious posters surfaced here briefly to play games.
Bill, you may be surprised you’re not the first person who has ever told me to cool it! As you know, I try to do my job with a certain amount of devilish humor. Some peope don’t get it . . . and that’s their right, too.
Garry, considering our bitter clashes during California’s electric power crisis, I am not shocked, as it were, in the least.
Real class, Bill. As a new reader of your post who doesn’t work for any candidate or organization supporting a candidate, I politely asked you to clarify your rules, and my post briefly appeared–and then suddenly vanished. I assume I’m one of the “mysterious posters” you accuse of playing games. Look in the mirror, pal, and at least have the decency to send me an e-mail explaining how my post differed from all the Westly advocacy that appears here without identification.
You have a fake e-mail address, friend.
Cut the crap.
I do not have time for these silly games, as I have mentioned about a thousand times.
A regular newspaper would round-file your missive without a second thought. I have to deal with endless games and silly back-talk like this.
Enough is enough.
>Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because they are not accepting mail from williambradley@earthlink.net:
salparadox
I have always enjoyed this site and since my earlier blundering in, I usually just read and stay away from posting, partially because I don’t have much to add and find the other posts very educational, even when I disagree.
However, in the last few days, one thing has jumped out at me and that is the claim that one candidate is more electable than the other and I can’t stay away from commenting on that.
First, as a Democrat, I have to be honest. No matter which side you are on in this race, there are a lot of questions about how the eventual nominee will do in the general election. Arnold looks very weak in a lot of ways (according to one poll 48% of the voters say they probably won’t vote to reelect him which is incredibly bad for this point in time), but he is a celebrity and he will get all the coverage he needs for his point of view which is not usually the case for political candidates, so he will have the chance to convince Californians that he is the best choice for the job.
On Democrats, I don’t think either candidate has made a clear compelling case that they could win a general election. However, people should notice that even while they have beaten each other up, there is no sign that either candidates numbers are getting dramatically weaker for the general face off. Both are still very close to Arnold and following tradition, will probably jump a lot when fire starts going in the Governor’s direction as well as theirs.
Westly does do a couple of points better in the polls showing hypothetical matchups for November, although everything I have seen is within the margin of error and I have been told that a few polls show a different result. But when talking about Westly as the stronger nominee, it should be remembered that he also barely beat a very underfunded Tom McClintock four years ago with a split opposition and a lot of Republicans openly supporting Westly. Westly was identified as the heavy favorite when the race began and people were surprised that the race was as close as it was. Angelides on the other hand has been in several races and won most of them, including a couple where he started out behind in the polls.
I guess to me the question is, which shows greater potential for the general election? Two points in a poll now or a history of a candidate improving his standing in the runoff.
This sounds a bit like something from a shill for Angelides, but I think both Phil and Steve have a tremendous upside for the general because they both have been successful business people (Democrats are often questioned on fiscal competence) and will have numerous supporters when the time comes that are prominent members of the other party. I think both have a reasonable shot at beating Arnold, but both will have to improve their effort for the general. However in choosing the party nominee, I may be biased, but I personally think this is the rare race where people shouldn’t worry at all about electability because they both have roughly an equal chance and just decide who they think would be the best Governor. Of course it would be nice if we could do that in every election, but we don’t always get the chance. This time we have that chance. ALIMO!
Angelides has not done better in any polls against Schwarzeneger than Westly.
Angelides is tied with Scwharzeneger in the new LA Times poll.
Westly beats Schwarzeneger by ten percent.
That said, I think they both would lose to Schwarzeneger.
I wonder why … Mulholland does not … come on here instead of hiding behind fools with easily shredded fake names.
BB Note: I edited this post.
I’m sure bradley wants Angelides to win the primary.
I’m not sure you want to know what I want …
Sorry, my friend Tom Kaptain, Angelides has actually run for office five times — and lost three of those five times. In the ’94 race for treasurer, he outspent his GOP opponent 3-to-1 — and still got beat by double digits. His opponents in both the primary and general elections in the two he won — ’98 and ’02 — were jokes. Get on the Capitol Weekly site and read my op-ed from Jan. 12 about Angelides’ true electoral history. In ’02, Steve Westly ran against the only Republican on the entire ticket who had ever run statewide before. In the primary, he beat a better-established Democrat who had most of the major endorsements — including that of Gov. Davis. Westly may be a more inexperienced candidate in many ways, but your favorite Angelides is not now, nor has he ever been, an electoral leviathan. And trust me, he’s a Mondale-type disaster in the fall if he’s the nominee.
And BTW, I would welcome my friend Bob Mulholland to blog on here under his own name. Why wouldn’t he? I don’t use anonymous shills and surrogates with fake names to say what I want to say. I say it myself under my own name. The Angelides campaign should be equally open and forthright.
I feel very strongly that you are wrong about both losing to Shwarzenegger. First, any poll you look at shows him with a huge number of people who have already decided not to vote for him while his own supporters are saying they are much more undecided.
The problem the Governor has at least in my opinion is that everyone followed his actions closely when he first took office and to quote Republican pollster Arnold Steinberg, he has convinced people that he is not only a typical politician, but that he is also not a very effective one.
In some ways, I like the Governor (I was a Ted Kennedy supporter and met his wife several times on that campaign so I at least am not overly hostile for that reason) but I think he has created an image that he will have trouble disowning.
To Democrats (and he will need large numbers to win) he is the person who perhaps more than anyone else in the country, reelected George Bush. Beyond that, you have all of the fallout from the special election. For the more liberal upscale voters, there is a lot of anger over his seeming change of heart on campaign finance issues. I just think he has trouble getting the large numbers of crossovers he needs.
But I also think he has problems on the other side. I think Republican activist types are fighting for the future of their party and as the Governor leans first in one direction, then in the other, I don’t think he can keep them all on board. I especially don’t think that is true because whomever his opponent is in the general election, it will be a candidate who has received prominent Republican support in the past and probably will in this election also. It is tough for a member of a minority party to win an election when his own base is fragmented. In fact, in the LA Times poll you referred to (although I am not a believer in polls and know from experience that the Times poll is among the worst) you saw that large numbers of voters who identified themselves as moderate Republicans said they would not vote to reelect the Governor. In the end, I think either Democrat is the favorite, but of course, things can change between now and November.
Garry, I hope you have a damn good response ad to “Twins.” And I hope you tell the voters that Westly might be the only hope to beat Arnold. Have any Republican consultants gone on record saying they hope Angelides is the nominee? That would be gold.
Obviously, I disagree with Tom K. on his assertion that either is a good general election candidate. An open pro-tax stance has never worked, and won’t work this time, either. Steve has his problems but could actually pull it off if the right pieces fall into place.
As always, Garry makes an excellent point, however in fairness, it should be pointed out that you are counting two elections as losses that were when Angelides was very young, including his loss as a 19 year old college student.
As for the loss to Matt Fong, that was a close race in the Wilson landslide. But you are right, he probably should have won it and maybe a case can be made (your op ed piece did a good job of it) that Angelides is not going to be that strong in the general. However, I would suggest that there should be some credence given to the idea that he has learned some things by going through the battles.
You should also be fair and say that even though he outspent David Roberti by a ton, Roberti was no slouch and a lot of people were surprised at the outcome and that Angelides probably exceeded expectations in the general election that year also.
So, Tom, you actually believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be pretty easy to beat?
OK.
You have to put some real blinders on to believe that.
Probably my past history as a Democratic activist colors my vision. But knowing your past (and as I said, I read this site religiously because I learn a lot) I would be curious as to how you think he gets the large number of crossover votes that he will need. The only reason I can think of is if you still believe there are large numbers of voters that still think of him as the nonpolitical celebrity that they once thought of him as and I just don’t run across anyone who feels that way. I am not as anti-Arnold as a lot of people, especially Dems, but any time I talk to casual voters of any persuasion as opposed to hard core politico’s, I get the same comments about Arnold. We hoped for so much and then he wound up being just like everyone else. I don’t think it’s possible for him to shake that image. I think a lot of people supported him for governor thinking his views mirrored their own. With the back and forth on the special, I think large numbers have decided that his views are in opposition to theirs and I don’t think it’s possible to bring back together the coalition he needs to win.
But more than that, I also think whomever the Democratic nominee winds up being, they have a huge upside as they get their story out. Both are not only more moderate than traditional Democrats, but they also are success stories in a lot of different ways outside of politics. There is a lot to know and like in both and right now no one has heard their story, only the fighting that has gone on in the primary. But that’s just my perspective on where things are right now.
Tom, I just want you are not alone in thinking that either candidate has a fairly equal chance to beat Arnold in the general. But either of them has a very tough job, far too tough to call them anything approaching a favorite. Both candidates have strengths and both have weaknesses in the general and the polls, which have been better for Westly, have been so only marginally.
The word on the street has always been that gop operatives highly favor an angelides-arnold contest and many have said so openly, if I’m not mistaken.
Bill, I’d like to add my voice to those saying thank you for this wonderful site. Thank you again and again.
Part of the LA Weekly endorcement seemed off to me: the part about Westly having a soul.
I am voting for Steve in a few days, but I am the first to admit that Steve Westly is a politician through and through. We all know he wants to run for President, a move I would welcome, but are we really to believe, looking at his biography, that he didn’t know that he wanted to do this even in college? When he was running for chair of the Democratic party at age 23? I understand that most people cannot see through a politician’s motives, but they leave nothing up to chance, and calculate every single move.
A soul? Maybe. But I really don’t think his actions show it. Maybe his overall life accomplishments.
With that said, no one else will beat Arnold. We need a Democratic politician, not someone like Angelides, who I believe is more ‘real’ but because of it, much less electable.
Here’s a little fun fact for some to digest. I’ve spoken to Bob and said “Bob, that a$$hole Bradley mentioned you again on his blog”, Bob looks up from reading his paper and goes “don’t waste your time reading that stuff, go make some calls”, I go “yes sir”. That’s it. (I’m not an Angelides staffer either, volunteer yes) On one occasion he mentioned knowing Bradley when he was doing “good stuff” back at Berkeley. Bob is a mystery few will ever get, I have more fun talking about ‘Nam with him, then the knowledge I gain picking his mind on politics, (though that’s pretty good too).
My next political question is, what will the Westly reaction to “Twins” be? do you 1) say nothing 2) denounce or 3) embrace 4) a combination of all those?
…and here’s my june 6th prediction, low turnout equals democrat high propencity voters turn out (people turned off by neg ads), they’re more likely to vote phil (steve needs moderates & DTS who know they can vote in dem primary) phil by 5
one other note on Bob, hardest working man in politics, in at 9 after driving to sac from chico, last one to leave
Metro, Silicon Valley’s weekly also endorsed Westly, but the Angelides campaign had the chutzpah to steal a Metro photo without permission for their TV commercial
Brian, I disagree with your prediction. In the Field Poll coming out Friday it will have Angelides up but within the margin and 25% still undecided. There will be low turnout, which will favor Angelides, but the undecideds will overwhelmingly go with Westly. A photofinish – Westly by 3. On June 7th, the profile of this race will skyrocket and Westly will start running as fast as he can to keep up with Arnold.
Mr. Van Riper, such an interesting story there.
Bob Mulholland didn’t know me at Berkeley.
Do try again.
>On one occasion he mentioned knowing Bradley when he was doing “good stuff” back at Berkeley. Bob is a mystery few will ever get, I have more fun talking about ‘Nam with him, then the knowledge I gain picking his mind on politics, (though that’s pretty good too).
hey, i don’t know what to tell you, from the horses mouth, i guess you did something good there back in the day
Brian, Brian, Brian, wrong, wrong, wrong.
One or the other or both of you are lying.
Is LA Times going to endorse anyone for the Republican primary? There’s this guy Bill Chambers / Railroad Switchman on the ballot.
Just a question — in all the run-up to where we are today, how come there weren’t any women expressing interest in running for the Democratic nomination? I mean, if there were, I never heard about it (was the question ever posed to DiFi?)
It would have made for an interesting matchup vs. Arnold.