When Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides and his former rival, Controller Steve Westly, meet this week, it will be three weeks since their bitterly contested, down-to-the-wire primary race came to its conclusion. Now Westly is coming to Angelides’ aid as the challenger seeks to upend Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
According to sources, Angelides has some very specific ideas about how Westly can help his campaign. But Westly’s efforts to do so are complicated by a new pro-Schwarzenegger TV ad which humorously blasts Angelides by repeating some of Westly’s nearly successful primary attacks against him.
Westly and Angelides have not met since their hurriedly put together party unity event with the rest of the new Democratic ticket — absent Jerry Brown and Bill Lockyer — on June 7th in Los Angeles. Westly publicly pledged his support then, but the two will meet for the first time three weeks later.
The Angelides campaign is said to believe that the ex-eBay honcho can be helpful to the Democratic nominee in several specific ways beyond the usual party unity purposes, and the obvious question of moderate voters.
For one, he can help Angelides in the Central Valley. Westly swept the Central Valley in the primary. Angelides will need to hold Schwarzenegger’s margin of victory in the Central Valley down if he has to have a hope of winning in November.
For another, Westly can be helpful in Silicon Valley, which he also carried, both with voters and with the high tech industry of which he is a part.
For a third factor, Angelides wants Westly’s help with Asian-Americans, another emerging constituency carried by Westly. The controller’s wife, a Chinese immigrant-turned-successful-high tech executive in her own right, Anita Yu Westly, proved to be a rising star herself campaigning for her husband. Westly’s family story — their kids are learning Chinese, and he speaks Spanish, though “only 10 words of Chinese,” as he puts it — is seen by many as representing a hopeful future for California.
But there is a new complication for all this newfound harmony between Angelides and Westly, and that is the Schwarzenegger TV ad conceived and produced by his consultants and paid for by the California Republican Party. Steve Westly is the off-screen star.
The throughline of the new negative spot is that Angelides would move California backward, like the original official campaign ad version to which it is the successor. The new negative ad continues the visual motif of figures moving backwards. In the first ad, it began with a bird moving backwards, finally ending with Angelides himself walking backwards.
In the new version, all the visuals show Angelides walking backwards. And the message this time is not partially about tax increases, it is entirely about tax increases. And the messenger, whose identity the announcer teases until the end of the spot, is Angelides’ narrowly defeated Democratic primary rival, Controller Steve Westly.
Quoting him throughout, as “one person’s view of Phil Angelides” — the spot is called “Quote” — the ad assails Angelides for proposing $10 billion in tax increases. After a litany of tax hikes Angelides has proposed in recent years but says he is no longer for, with wry music playing throughout, the announcer coyly asks: “What if Steve Westly was right?”
That will be an interesting wrinkle for Westly and Angelides to deal with when they emerge from their meeting this week with a newfound political partnership for the general election.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
You’d think a precondition to figuring out how Westly could help would be to first figure out how he lost. The Westly campaign, not to mention the entire pundit class, made some pretty big miscalculations, held too dearly to some cherished myths, and did some stupid tactical things. I’d think they’d need to clear that up before deciding that Westly can Open Silicon Valley or Woo Moderate Voters. Let’s hope three weeks hindsight gives someone a clear idea of just where the wheels came off in the last month.
Does Westly HAVE TO DO THIS? Is this the required “political protocol” and/or does he have to do this because if he does what a future in politics it would be held against him if he was not a high profile team player right now?
After, the “Chicago” ad, your report as that Phil’s organization treated Nick V in his recent job quest, the names Phil called him in the SF Debate likening him to some right wing nut…it just does not feel right to see them hand in hand..
Then when Phil looses again … Westly is pegged as damaged goods all over again…I know everyone will say he must …but I wish he would not do this.
Any thoughts there, new poster?
Barbara, this stuff happens all the time.
I would like to see Westly replace DF. If the democratic party wants to grow, it needs to show some luv towards the indie/mods. If Westly is involved in Phil’s campaign, I think he could give Phil a fighting chance. As far as a loss damaging either Phil or Steve…i dont agree. Most politicans begin their careers with a loss or two and it makes them hungry. Think about AS, PA and SW on a little league team. PA is pitching, AS is at bat and SW could be the ref and all of us are the screaming bad mannered parents.
I realize that. And, sometimes it is appropriate…the party rallying etc…But it does not work this time. It will ring hollow.
I thought I’d expand on the invitation to Steve Beckwith to deliver his appraisal of how Westly lost. Or Angelides, as the Angelides people would have it.
But “Steve Beckwith” has a fake e-mail address.
Yes. It’s true that Angelides wants Westly’s help with Asian-Americans and Anita Yu Westly has proved to be a rising star in campaigning for her husband.
But we Asian-Americans do not trust Flip Floppers. We had enough of betrayal in China and Vietnam. If Westly ever want to run for office again, he’s better not….
We saw enough of John Kerry in 2004.
Burn me once, shame on….
Bill, you had stated in an earlier posting, that Arnold has proposed ( my word) a ‘cap and trade’ system to reduce carbon emissions.
In todays LA Times article about Fabians bill to enact limits on greenhouse emissions, there was no mention of the ‘cap and trade’ bill you mentioned.
All it says is that Arnold has set ‘targets’ for carbon reduction.
I did a small search and have not found that any where.
Please point me in the right direction.
The Fabian bill is a good test for how seriously Arnold is about the environment. He is on record stating that Global Warming science is clear-humans have caused global warming. He also met with Gore this weekend, at a book signing.
So, will Arnold get behind a bill that the maunfacturers and others will fight tooth and nail? I bet not! In which case, he will be against both an oil extraction fee and a Global Warming bill. All the green bus trips wont help him, in that case.
Check again, Mitchell.
There are plenty of sources.
Not the least of which my report from the very next day, available right here.
Incidentally, especially for single purpose posters like Mitchell — who is required to use his real full name and disclose political affiliations — I want to keep the discussion on topic.
Full name, Mitchell Jack Schwartz. Affiliation-liberal democrat. Supporting Phil over Arnold. Member of many environmental organizations.
If Arnold ‘cap and trade’ doesnt even warrant a mention in a very long article in the LA Times about a bill being pushed by the Speaker of the house and dealing with the same issue, then it doesnt seem that anybody is taking it seriously. Least of all, Arnold.
Okay, Angelides spinner, that is your take. It’s wrong.
You have managed to miss multiple mentions of this.
This, incidentally, has nothing to do with the topic of this column, does it?
AND WITH THAT LESS THAN FASCINATING EXCHANGE with a campaign spinner, New West Notes now has passed the 10,000 comments mark.
Sorry to go off topic, I am a religous reader of this blog, but cant always respond immediately.
I said I support Phil, does that make me a spinner? I do NOT work for the campaign( I did do some work for them last year, though). If I did, I wouldnt have slammed Phil for not voting for Solar bill.
Last point (off topic as it is)on Arnold and Global Warming. With all due respect to this blog-If Arnold were serious about ‘cap and trade’ wouldnt it at least warrant a mention in todays LA Times? It was a long article! I suspect that Arnold isnt serious about it, and thus no one else is either.
I have disclosed everything I can think of. Can I just post in peace now.
Bill; you are always mad at me! Stop picking on me! After all, I am MR 10,000th!
Congrats Bill, its quite a popular rendevous point for policy wonks, hacks and junkies who can’t get enough of it.
Oh, EXCUSE ME, Mitchell, You don’t work for Phil Angelides now, you worked for him last year. Got it.
I can think of plenty of reasons why the Times failed to mention cap and trade beyond your obvious partisan posturing.
Go harass them.
“After, the “Chicago” ad, your report as that Phil’s organization treated Nick V in his recent job quest…”
To what is this a reference? I searched the archives and couldn’t find any info on Nick’s job search problems.
It\’s in the Comments section, which you don\’t have the capacity to search. If you want to know where, ask the poster who made the point.
Mitchell the Angelides spinner used up all the time I have today for the Comments section with his off-topic, misleading spin.
Let us see, what possible reasons would the Los Angeles Times have. The Times set out to destroy Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall. The Times was one of only two newspapers to endorse Phil Angelides over Steve Westly.
No, I am sure that is not it.
Sorry, I cannot remember exactly in what exchange …try the “Zogby poll post” ..if you cannot find it there, at some point Tommy Boy will show up he will remember or find it for you …he is like a Blog Detective! ..
Donald! I found it! It was Mr. Bradley on June 21st at 10:13 pm
“No, the Angelides campaign, i.e., Mr. Angelides, as I am told, shot down Nick Velasquez for a key state Democratic Party post.”
Barbara, did you know that Gray Davis refused to hire most people who worked for his primary opponents?
There is nothing new here.
Though of course I love how people try to make it all seem new.
In fact, Gray Davis refused for a long time to hire Susan Kennedy!
Because she was a FEINSTEIN person. And he ran against Feinstein. 6 years earlier. For another office.
Yep, found the thread. Thanks.
Well, Mr. Bradley, if I read you correctly… Nick V. was not seeking a job with Angelides …he was seeing a “Democratic post”….There is a difference.
Barbara, I was not in the mood for that sort of time wasting thing with the Angelides spinner, I’m not in the mood for it with you.
Although you pretend to be remarkably innocent at times, you know as well as I do that the campaign and party apparats are fully integrated in a general election.
Mr. Bradley:In fact, Gray Davis refused for a long time to hire Susan Kennedy!
Because she was a FEINSTEIN person. And he ran against Feinstein. 6 years earlier. For another office.”
And of course I am very surprised to hear that about Gray Davis…I mean Gray was not paranoid, or petty or mean regarding staff or or or or or or or OR!!!! and anyway, we probably should not talk about GUV Davis, as I just complained about Steven Maviglio always talking about him here…he will just come back with yet another story…
Has there ever been a sneakier more sophomorically partisan bunch than this Angelides crew?
In a governor’s race I mean. It’s typical in lesser campaigns.
“Has there ever been a sneakier more sophomorically partisan bunch than this Angelides crew? ”
Yeah, the Bush White House.
I am wearying of the comments section. I stopped it from being an allout flame zone. However … The chit chit chit chit from all sides is irritating to receive, however, just as it is irritating to track down fake handle unacknowledged spinners, etc.
Well, well.
“Jim Meyers” has … hold to build suspense … a fake e-mail address.
Shocking. Positively shocking.
Bill, you are not exactly correct about Gray Davis refusing to hire staffers from his opponent’s campaigns. In ’98, we hired Kimberly Ray as our finance director in the general election. She had been Jane Jarman’s finance director in the primary. In addition, we brought her assistant in that campaign, Mark Vargas, over to ours, as well. We also hired Gabe Sanchez as deputy press secretary in the general. He served the same role in Harman’s primary campaign. In addition, after the primary we met with Kam Kuwata and Bill Carrick, who been campaign manager and media consultant, respectively, in the Harman campaign, and integrated them into our campaign in a non-paid capacity. In fact, I will reveal here for the first time that Carrick actually played Lungren in our practice debates (and remember, we had a CA-record four debates with Lungren).
On another note, I still don’t understand why the Phil shills can’t post under their real names on this or any other blog. What does that say about their confidence in their arguments on behalf of their own candidate? Get some spine, boys and girls. You’re gonna need it between now and November.
Not exactly correct?
Hmm, that sounds kinda like, you know, wrong.
Oops.
I’ll take up Bill’s invitation to do some Monday morning quarterbacking on where it wrong for Westly. I used to be in the campaign business a long, long time ago. Setting aside questions of TV strategy (which was never my expertise), there was some big errors. This blog seems keen on full disclosure, so I’ll declare I’m in Sacramento, I used to be in the business but since retired, I’ve got a lot of friends still active (and talkative), and had no rooting interest in the primary (but have refrained from commenting until now), and I saw both the Westly and Angelides campaigns in action in the capital.
Now, I don’t want to step on any toes here–and most of the people I saw from both campaigns were super talented–but there’s some things that were just plain wrong. I’m not going to talk about message or ads–just what should have been done differently organizationally:
1. Hire adults
The boys (and girls) on the Westly bus were smart and energetic. I’m sure they’ll go on to be great political flacks. But for this campaign, they had limited experience in the Major Leagues and were not as effective as they could have been with some adult supervision. You just can’t put Westly’s speeches, press relations, organizing, and political outreach entirely in the hands of twenty-somethings and expect world-class results. Angelides won in every one of those departments. Big surprise. Where were the veterans?
2. Fire Jude Barry
I don’t mean to get personal, but the tactical errors always get pinned on the campaign manager (I’ve had my share.) Barry is unquestionably the smartest Internet guy in California, and I hope Angelides learns from the Westly web strategy, but Barry had exactly zero experience statewide. It showed…painfully so. (Let’s not even get into that he was Ron Gonzales’s chief of staff…uh, yeah.) Here’s what I see to be the major screw-ups:
Where was the field program? It was obvious last fall that Angelides would have the full union might behind him, and that means a field operation and GOTV. Why didn’t Westly create his own organization to counter? He could have afforded one, obviously. Presumably the TV people said, “Don’t waste money on field; spend it all on our TV ads.” But of course they would say that. The job of the campaign manager is to think strategically and say no to the consultants on occasion. $2 million could have bought a great field operation and upped the turnout of the moderates Westly was counting on. It makes the difference in tight races. Instead, Angelides had the unions making phone calls and Westly had nothing. Sheesh–you’d think Dean’s former CA guy would have learned that having a lot of money to spend on TV isn’t everything.
Where was the East Bay and Sacramento presence? Westly got killed in those areas. Contra Costa, Alameda, and Sac counties were a slaughter. Westly had nothing there–no fundraising, no political outreach, not even an office in Sacramento. I have friends who’ve been in East Bay politics for 35 years that never even got a phone call from the Westly campaign. It’s as if Barry and other senior staffers never crossed the Dumbarton Bridge. Same as with field—a $10 million edge over your opponent means you don’t have to settle for the Hyundai campaign operation, you can afford the full-service Mercedes-Benz operation.
Why no communications director? As far as I could see, communications meant South riffing one-liners to the press, Velasquez doing the nuts and bolts and releases, and Barry doing everything else. Did he have too much pride to give communications up to an honest-to-god communications director? Did he enjoy the ego trip too much? As a result of that mix-up, the Westly campaign never seemed to have a message beyond “different” and “no new taxes.” And there certainly was no coordinated daily or weekly message. Barry thought he could do everything but ended up doing nothing.
What was with the weird schedule? I kept waiting for the MR to list Westly events. And waited and waited. Why did Barry have a self-funded candidate spend most of his time…raising money? Why not put him in front of people? He might have developed the message he never had.
Finally–the lottery. Am told this was a Jude Barry original. If so, that’s dereliction of duty right there. I never understood why, after the lottery became a punchline rather than a policy, the Westly campaign stayed with it. Now we know: Barry’s credibility was on the line. A more veteran campaign manager would have recognized the wheels came off and pulled the idea when it became a laughingstock. Instead, it became symptomatic of everything empty with the Westly message–and everything wrong with campaign management.
3. Do whatever Garry South says
I’ve never gotten a full and non-conflicting story of what happened in the last few weeks between South and Westly, but from some of the sniping in the press, it seems clear there was tension. It also seems like South got frustrated people weren’t listening to him enough. I’d think that given the incredible lack of experience at EVERY LEVEL of the campaign–from the candidate to the campaign manager to the staffers–you’d just do whatever South said. Period. Lesson learned!
That’s all I got. I’m hoping some other people closer to this than me might come in and clean up the record.
Mr. Bradley,
I don’t know why you got all surly about the Nick V remark. Heck, unlike most everyone else here I am not in politics and I wouldn’t even know about it except that YOU told us about it, and as you know, I hang on every word you write as if it was gospel!…anyway who knows, maybe this “Donald” is looking for the remark because he wants to hire Nick!…or maybe, this is “Donald” like in Donald Trump, and he is is going to do a new “reality TV show” about bright ,committed, talented, political staffers getting treated in a vindictive and shabby way by powerful politicians and he wants Nick to be the star! Who knows Mr. Bradley… NWN’s just might change the course of lives and political fortunes…Think “Rosebud’ Mr. Bradley!…
WELCOME BACK MR. SOUTH! Hope you your wife and son are all doing well! We all miss you beiing here!
You are so unindulged here …
Barbara: I’m a nobody, but Nick’s helped me out in the past, and I don’t like seeing him railroaded, if that’s what happened. That’s all.
Thank you, Barbara. One month old today (our son, I mean); weighed in this morning at the pediatrician’s at 10 lbs. 6 oz! He’s starting to make real, intense eye contact, and that makes shivers run up one’s spine. (Which is more than can be said about the general-election campaign for governor so far!)
Notice that Mr. South didn’t comment on “Capitol Outsider’s” ruminations?
I’d be especially curious to see his response to “3. Do whatever Garry South says.”
I guess MY question for “Capitol Outsider” is this:
If you are such an outsider, where do you get nuggets like “such and such was a Jude Barry original” or “accounts of the last few weeks between Westly and South?”
Discussions of that sort sound a little – for lack of a better word – INSIDE to me.
Eh?
And – if I’m picking on “C.O.” – I feel obliged to offer my own thoughts on Westly’s loss; one which I am still taking very badly.
I think it could tie to the “Positive Campaign Pledge” meltdown.
From accounts here in these comments and in other news outlets, this is something Westly felt very strongly about and wanted to do. I can see that. The guy came off as a genuinely nice dude. He wanted to run a positive, uplifting, even feel-good campaign. So – against the urging of his highly-paid consultants – he went with the pledge.
His consultants were highly-paid for a reason. They’ve done these races before. Even won a few. They knew what people often don’t want to admit; you’ll never win an election without busting a few heads. A certain saying about omlets comes to mind.
But maybe Westly was using EggBeaters or something. He wanted eggless omlets. He made the pledge, loud and proud…and on camera.
When the time came to bust heads and Westly agreed to do it, Angelides had tape ready of him and the pledge.
Remeber that until that point, Westly was tagging his adds with the Clintonian line “A different kind of Governor.” It was a good line.
Once he was on camera breaking his strongly worded public pledge (an ad made more effective by Bradley’s suggestion of putting the “My First Attack Ad” camcorder footage in a context), he wasn’t a different kind of Governor anymore. In a way, he’d become the same old broken system…a candidate saying what he thought he needed to just to get elected.
He lost what made him most special. That thrashed the narrative he was building. It took him down on character – the character he had and the “character” he was portraying to the public.
I imagine the plan with the pledge went like this:
Steve offers up the pledge.
Phil won’t take it.
Steve rolls up the pledge and smacks Phil around with it.
People get mad at Phil for not agreeing to the pledge.
Steve uses the Pledge to remind people about Phil’s past.
Phil gets behind and goes negative first.
Steve says, “Hey, I offered this pledge. He wouldn’t take it. Now I must defend myself…TAHOE, TAHOE, TAHOE, TAHOE, TAXES, TAXES, TAXES, TAHOE.
Steve takes the moral high-gound, still gets to bruise Phil (without looking so bad), and maintains his “different” status.
But…
Nobody cared about the pledge at the time (no points scored by Steve)
Steve had to go “Comparative” first
Phil was able to claim the high-ground, and dealt a blow to Steve’s “Character.”
Steve’s attacks are blunted (a VERY little) because now he’s the same old attacking pol.
There was more, and the lack of grassrootsy/GOTV stuff is probably in the mix, but I wanted to give my two cents on this area.
Westly supporting Phil??? What a mistake. We Democrats handed Arnold the Governorship on a platter by selecting Angelides in the primary. It is said that you have to have the right stuff to succeed in politics. I applaud Phil as a Democrat but he just doesn’t have the right stuff to beat Arnold. He is just more of same old stuff. Westly would have beaten Arnold because he has that cross party appeal and the right stuff. As an environmentalist I just can’t vote for Phil. As a Democrat I won’t vote for Arnold. So I am writing in Westly in November. That’s grassroots! Who is with me on this?
There was no field program for anyone, period. I am a registered Democrat voter. Have been for years, vote in every election. Not one live person called. Not one mailer not from a slate until about 10 days before the election. Not one person knocked on the door, and it’s not like the house is empty. Where were the alleged apparatchiks? I’m not in an apartment building, I’m not in a gated community. I’m in a regular stract of single family homes on normal sized lots in the suburbs, with lots of registered voters around me. Where were they? That’s why you had record low turnout.
And for CO, Nick Papas is definitely in his 20′s. He just has tons and tons of experience. Experience counts, and Angelides had the team with experience.
I like the idea of a write-in campaign for Westly. What would it take to finance such a write-in campaign that might succeed?
Has Westly thought about this idea? Probably not, if he’s promised “unity.”
Still, if he meant the things he said in those ads, which I – and many others – believe were true, then how could he support Angelides?
Although my friend Garry South is, perhaps, the best-trained campaign consultant in California (and certainly one of the smartest) neither the Westly campaign nor the Angelides campaign had a genuine strategic message. By that I mean a simple, understandable, bumper-sticker length statement about what they believe and where they would lead. “A Different Kind of Governor” was weak sauce. It may have worked in some focus groups, but it failed to provide voters with any real understanding of how Westly would be different or where he would lead. Angelides had NO consistent message and still needs one. This is not just a problem for California Democrats — it’s a problem for Democrats nationally as well. “A New Deal,” “Compassionate Conservativism,” “Peace, Land and Bread,” “Experience Money Can’t Buy,” (as you can see, they don’t have to prove to be actually true :-]) — these are strategic messages that have meaning to voters. Whether Angelides can beat Schwarzenegger at all is surely problematic. But without a genuine strategic message, I believe, it’s not possible.
I’m going to disagree with Bill’s assessments about Westly, and I hope that in the spirit of friendship, Bill will be okay with this.
–I don’t think Westly proved to be a very good candidate. The Westly I met in the last week of the campaign was very much like the Westly in the 3 debates–heavily scripted and not very confident and conversant on the issues. He did not come off as natural, did not seem like an inspiring leader, and if it were not for his fortune, he would not be considered a serious candidate for any future race.
–Angelides beat him by 4.5 points and won all the major liberal Dem strongholds, and I think I was right about Westly’s lack of good field ops. Too, I’m not sure how others do the math, but if you add in the Angelo IE and the maybe 4-5 million spent by labor and the party, Westly still outspent Angelides by about 6-8 million.
–Which brings me to another point–what exactly was Westly’s strategy? It seemed, by Garry South’s comments early and late, that it hinged on merely outspending Angelides and doing so by a wide margin. This speaks poorly of both the process and the candidate.
–Phil Trounstine is right about Westly’s weak message. My sense is Westly really did want to run a positive and optimisitic campaign, but he failed to do ANYTHING with his momentum. Remember, Phil was attacking him for a month before the convention and Westly’s numbers were still going up. Westly neither sharpened his message nor did anything on ideas and policy to differentiate himself from Phil, and thus, had to resort to a final month of negative attacking, and it ended up hurting him worse than it hurt Phil.
–The stories about Westly’s help for campaign contributors will hopefully put to rest this myth that super-rich, (mostly) self-funded candidates are somehow more independent and truly different from other pols. This has never been shown to be the case, not even when such folks actually do get elected (see my homestate of New Jersey).
–Disparaging supporters of Angelides and questioning their motives–whether it be DiFi or environmentalists was not only bad form, but hurt Westly (and Garry South), creating a lot of bad blood, and energizing Phil’s base.
–Finally, the popular Nick V. has become communications director for Rocky Delgadillo. Despite his trouncing and bad habit of inflating his resume, Rocky is a very talented guy, and Nick V. will be of great help to him.
Thanks for the forum, I wish you all the best.
Mr. Troutstine,
I heard the same from you at the DEM Convention in the same session with Steven Maviglio and the author …In listening to you I assumed you meant there is a need for “slogans” because they make for good branding, I think you were also showing ADs during your presentation ….I understand that they identify a goal of a candidate or capture his or her essence.. however, here if I am reading you correctly, you appear to be saying a slogan has a more pivotal role in the winning of a campaign . But we are bombarded by slogans via marketing campaigns for every product on earth …does a slogan really make or break a political campaign anymore? I can buy that it may perk up interest, but be all that important in winning a campaign? With all due respect that seems a bit of a reach. Further, if a political slogan is ideological it just might turn off moderates and DTS voters…It seems to me that politics of campaigning has to be more nuanced these days, which results in slogans playing a limited role. It also helps to have a compelling candidate, I think Westly was one…I still do not understand how Angelides won????? I do not know a single person who voted for him! My friends say the same thing…this was all very confusing and disappointing…