For all their differences, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democratic challenger, Treasurer Phil Angelides, have at least one thing in common. Each man continues to struggle with his positioning in the political marketplace.
Schwarzenegger has famously shifted left since his disastrous “Year of Reform” special election debacle last year. Is the super-rich former action superstar back where he was when he entered politics, prior to embarking on a foolhardy path in 2005? Or is he, as many Democrats and a few Republicans argue, simply being an opportunist who will say or do anything to regain his popularity?
Angelides, a rich developer and longtime machine Democrat who ran as the insider choice of the Democratic establishment, had to move left to fend off a nearly fatal challenge in the primary from Controller Steve Westly, the ex-eBay honcho. Now he is out of position for where he needs to be to take on a moderate Republican incumbent. But because of problems with his campaign persona, he is having to continue to move left — as with his appearance at a Bay Area anti-Walmart rally today — to rally the core Democratic vote even as he attempts to move to the center with tax cutting proposals for the middle class to balance his still vague program of tax hikes for business and the rich.
Neither candidate would be grappling with these issues had things gone differently over the past year and a half.
For his part, Schwarzenegger unaccountably went off track last year with his special election initiatives agenda. The issues selected and, in particular, the manner in which they were pursued, were at variance with his “brand” in politics. Which was surprising, because Schwarzenegger has been as assiduous a promoter and protector of his brand as any star on the planet, even going so far as to sue a Midwestern car dealer who used his iconography without permission.
Schwarzenegger was elected as an optimistic, if at times hard-edged, centrist and reformer, eschewing partisan ping-pong in favor of finding solutions that work. While the reform part went by the wayside relatively quickly, with the governor emerging as a champion fundraiser from corporate interests, the rest of his positioning held up well during his first year in office, yielding record high popularity ratings among voters.
But in 2005, he campaigned as a harsh partisan, pushing seemingly arcane initiatives that were easily cast as a Republican power grab. Though they could have been sold from the center, Schwarzenegger and his then team of political advisors seemingly inexplicably chose to sell them from the right.
Now reviving his brand, Schwarzenegger — who has never really explained the 2005 debacle — has made himself prone to charges of opportunism and flip-flopping.
And for his part, Angelides would be in much better shape had two things not occurred. First, if this were still 2005, his reflexive persona as the “anti-Arnold” would be much more relevant. But the calendar changed and Schwarzenegger has proved unwilling to leave the “kick me” sticker on his keister. Second, Angelides would have been better off had Steve Westly not run.
That was Angelides’ plan, to clear the primary field by locking up the endorsements of the party’ reigning interest groups and establishment politicians. He succeeded spectacularly in gaining those endorsements. But, while it turned out that those associations, for Democratic voters, may have proved the difference in his narrow primary victory, there was an entire campaign to run against an opponent that Angelides and most of the Democratic establishment had grievously underrated as a competitor.
Had Westly won the nomination, of course, with his more consistent center/left positioning, appealingly telegenic persona, and high tech fortune, this would be a very different and closer race. But that’s another story.
So both party nominees soldier on, Schwarzenegger continuing to act as though last year never happened while endeavoring every day to convince voters that it, and not this year, is the aberration in his political career. And Angelides fighting to invigorate his party’s core voters while at the same time reaching out to the independent voters who will decide the election. It’s a campaign of cognitive dissonance.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Although the public surely took notice of Arnold’s conservative agenda in ‘05, his actions in ’04 weren’t exactly those of a moderate in CA. He slashed funding for education, cut spending for the disabled, and ran huge deficits – maybe those actions meet other’s definition of being in the middle, but they don’t meet mine. He was popular in ’04, there’s no denying that, but everyone (electeds in Sacramento included) was too star struck to even notice what he was doing. His popularity was likely due to his persona and not his actions.
In November, if the public still believes that Arnold was a moderate in ’04, then they’ll likely see ‘05 as an aberration. If the public is educated about what Arnold actually did in ’04, then they’ll see ’06 is the aberration.
If you check the rules of the site, you will see that a principal purpose spinner here must give full real name and political affiliations. Kindly comply.
Incidentally, a reality check on the spin.
“Lauren,” a new handle here, would have you believe that Democratic legislators and statewide elected officials did not know what they were doing in 2004 when they supported measures to bring the out of control state budget towards some semblance of balance.
And that California voters did not know what they were doing in 2004 when they approved an initiative to make constitutional the massive borrowing that had already taken place under the former Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic-led state Legislature.
Schwarzenegger campaigned in the recall as someone who would take on the ‘special interests’ that dominate Sacramento. These range from the all-powerful labor unions to the very legislators themselves, who are shielded from the electorate by a lousy redistricting ‘incumbent protection plan.’
So for the Governor (who campaigned with a broom in his hand pledged to sweep out the special interests) the Special Election last year was NOT off track, and you should try to re-write history.
What you saw was an attempt by the Governor to take on these special interests that are largely responsible for the grotesque increase in the size and scope of California government.
As a matter of fact, the Governor’s very point about their insideous influence was borne out by their ability to raise so much money (in the case of the CTA, even mortgaging their HQ) to kill these common-sense reforms.
The Governor may now be choosing, more or less, to go along to get along. He gets to deal with the cards that are dealth.
But his campaign to reign-in the special interests on the November ballot last year were 100% in line with his campaign themes in the recall election – the reasons why I endorsed him.
Jon Fleischman
As I wrote:
“But in 2005, he campaigned as a harsh partisan, pushing seemingly arcane initiatives that were easily cast as a Republican power grab. Though they could have been sold from the center, Schwarzenegger and his then team of political advisors seemingly inexplicably chose to sell them from the right.”
THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD FROM THE CENTER, SCHWARZENEGGER AND HIS THEN TEAM OF POLITICAL ADVISORS SEEMINGLY INEXPLICABLY CHOSE TO SELL THEM FROM THE RIGHT.
There was so much wrong with Mike “Movieman” Murphy’s part-time special election management. Bad initiatives, bad messages, Rip Van Winkle timing (remember the pianos to be dropped later comment?). Arnold ultimately bears responsibility for his ship crashing on his watch, but Murphy and his flamed out wiz kids set course for the rocks and did not respond until it was too late.
Question for all, how many California clients does DC Navigators have this year?
Mr. Bradley: Or is he, as many Democrats and a few Republicans argue, simply being an opportunist who will say or do anything to regain his popularity?
I think the label of “opportunist” is too harsh. He is a man driven “to succeed.” But, I for one to not see that as a negative. However, this week there are some very important issues e.g., global warming, health care for ALL children in California that need to be addressed. When you have enormous opposition from your own party, when issues are difficult and high risk, you need to depend on your moral compass to guide you. You also need that moral compass to help explain yourself to both those that oppose you and even those that are indifferent to the outcome so that you can bring them on board to your thinking. Theodore Roosevelt said: “There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility.” I see the optimism, I see the smartness, but I am troubled that after 3 years I see no “moral responsibility” in Arnold’s actions.
Zero California clients for Murphy’s DC Navigators?
It’s all about winning.
Schwarzenegger has proven his adaptability and offered solutions. That is leadership and a winning strategy.
Angelides has proven his lack of vision and solutions for California. Angelides, tax is NOT a solution.
Arnold will tell each group what they want to hear even if it contradicts what he has previously said. I beleive he will go back to being the do nothing, lame duck, photo op, excessive vacation taking governor that we know he can be.
Dan, one man’s “adaptability” is another man’s “lack of conviction.” Which is which? Depends on who you ask.
What is interesting here is how Arnold’s record has become something of a Rorschach test. Whether he is a conversative of liberal, or something inbetween, depends on what ink blot of a record you look at. (I see two dragons thinking about CO2 emissions)
Arnold knows this (He built his career by throwing people off and psyching them out). And he’s getting away with it. Joke’s on us.
Where does Arnold stand? Depends, where are you?
Gov. Schwarzenegger has returned to where he started. That is why he is doing well again.
But which persona is real, and which is Memorex? Inquiring minds want to know….
You are asking my view, given my acknowledged handicap of actually knowing the candidates?
Yes, please, Bill. I’ve seen this spun so many different ways I’m about spun out, and don’t know what to believe any more, other than that I didn’t seem to get what I paid for in 2003.
Hi Bill. I have been reading you for awhile but this is my first time commenting. I hope you won’t dismiss me immediately for having certain political views. I am a Democrat, but I also spent several years as a journalist so am intimately familiar with the disdain for baseless spin. I am not here to spin, but more to engage in the conversation about this race.
Your analysis about where Angelides is right now is correct. Clearly the Democratic establishment was not prepared for a well-organized and orchestrated Schwarzenegger campaign, and clearly if it were 2005 and if Westly hadn’t run, Phil would be in much better shape right now.
My question is about Schwarzenegger. You acknowledge that there is some confusion as to what his political philosophy really is — ie, was 2005 the abberation or is it 2006? But in the same column you also freely give him the “moderate” label (third paragraph). And I wonder how you came to that conclusion? Is it from knowing him personally? I really haven’t been able to draw that conclusion based on his actions or the ways in which he has chosen to govern and campaign.
He seems all over the map to me, so the best analysis I have is that he will do or say anything to win, with no particular political philosophy guiding him. I don’t see that kind of behavior — oscillating from one pole of extreme to the other — as deserving of the label “moderate,” which I take seriously as a political philosophy.
What Jennifer Ancona should disclose according to NWN rules — with which her husband became extremely familiar, as she is well aware — is that she is a proprietor of one of the very partisan Democratic web sites, http://speakoutca.org/.
Here is Jen’s bio from Speak Out California, along with those of her colleagues there and her husband, who posted in much the same vein here repeatedly.
http://speakoutca.org/about/
Now, do I think that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a moderate? Yep. What he is saying now is much like what he was saying to me before he ran. It is also much like what he was saying as a candidate and in much of his early governorship.
His consistent line is that the action is in the center. His eclectic view of the center brings in what is usually described as elements of the left and the right.
There’s much more to say about this, of course. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what two of his biggest critics said about him before he ran, back in 2002, when I was profiling him.
Arianna Huffington called him a good guy, a moderate Republican. I ran into him at parties on her house on a couple of occasions.
Warren Beatty called him a middle of the road guy, a Rockefeller Republican.
I thought by saying I was a Democrat and listing the website for the organization that employs me was enough, but I guess not. I do blog at Speak Out California, and at GovernorPhil.com. My apologies for not fully understanding the rules.
So I am confused. If I admit these affiliations, but still genuinely want to engage in the conversation and not just “spin,” can I? Or are you saying I am not welcome here at all because of my affiliations, despite the fact that, I felt, my comments and questions were reasonable and very civil.
Well, Jen, you left quite a lot out, including that your husband posted the same spin in a less civil manner and kept emailing me. You also left out that you are proprietor of a hyperpartisan Democratic blog, not merely a social justice blog.
But you already know that.
My husband and I are both involved in politics, but we are two entirely separate people, so I hope you will judge each of us based on our own comments.
I don’t think it’s fair to say I was spinning in that comment at all. And I didn’t read all the comments from the time Dan was commenting, but as I recall it was an entirely different topic — taxes vs. this question of what is Schwarzenegger’s political philosophy.
There are other people who comment here as far as I can tell who spin very regularly in their daily lives, but who you allow to come here and engage. I am wondering why you are feeling so hostile towards me in particular? You didn’t seem to have a problem with Fleischman’s comments, despite the fact that he was spinning a particular message (the special election was in line with Arnold’s promise to “clean up Sacramento”).
I can understand your hesitation with me due to previous commenters. But I am my own person and I would ask for the benefit of the doubt rather than lumping me in with a group and judging me based on that.
Your associates do this here all the time, Jen, as you know.
You were well aware of the rules, etc., etc., etc.
Oh, incidentally, as everyone knows, Jon Fleischman is as well identified as a partisan spinner as anyone can be these days.
There are few things more boring to me than disingenuousness.
Okay. So just to be clear, are you saying I am not welcome?
As I said before, I have no intention of hiding where I am politically. I am definitely pushing for a change in the way things are, particularly when it comes to communities of color in California. It was my first time posting and I had no idea what level of affiliation-disclosure was required by you. I also apologized for that, and will do so again!
I am quite capable of holding strong views while also engaging in civil and meaningful discussions and debates on important issues in state politics. That is my only purpose here. I also really want to respect the rules of your site, which is why I was asking for clarification. If my affiliations alone, and not the content of my own comments, prevent me from posting here, fine. Just tell me that.
There is a certain type of ideologue who insists on getting personal answers to broad questions.
Just so readers are aware, I personally emailed Jennifer Ancona the NWN Rules which make the answer to her plaintively repeated question very clear.
Abide by them, you’re fine.
She started off violating them, despite knowing them EXTREMELY well from talking to her husband on a weekend night … but I helped her by providing her credentials.
I, for one, am glad to see the Governor return to his roots. It’s clear that he is most successful when he decides to (sorry, Mr. Gore) “be his own man…”
Jen’s commments make me want to run to the post office and change my voter registration.
So a Dem operative just emailed me:
“What are your site’s rules?”
I go: Look to the right side of the site where it says ABOUT NWN RULES.
I swear, it is a conspiracy to waste my time.
Hey Peter,
Just so you klnow, Gore is tan, rested, and ready!
Gospodin Bierko, I am unclear as to the role of Viktor Drazen in the Angelides campaign.
Rule #1: Don’t waste the king’s time!
Like her husband and fellow proprietor of their hyperpartisan site, she obviously does not want to ask a question or have a dialogue.
I answered her question. She could not care less.
The level of disenguousness in that camp is really something to behold.
These Net Rats are total losers, they should stick to the blogs nobody reads.
It is high anxiety time in Mr. Angelides’s world.
The Governor is a moderate and has never hidden that fact from anyone…..not in the 03 recall and not now….Bill your assessment is spot on….I can’t say I’m surprised at their disingenuousness of wanting to post using their rules not yours….I wonder what impact if any to PA’s campaign this might cause?
One must wonder whether Bill would have tried to reveal the identities of Publius, Cato, and Brutus had the internet been around during those days…
Hell, its been “High Anxiety” time in Phil’s world since about late March. Plus, Mulholland moved back to the party b/c of two reasons:
1.) Phil is damn near broke and the money ain’t coming in…I have heard that big Dem donors are EXTREMELY put off by Phil with one calling him, “the most arrogant, egotistical SOB in politics and– and with a movie star as Governor, thats really f()*_*()ing saying something. I just can’t see myself cutting a check to this guy.” (I kid you not, that is damn near a direct quote)
2.) Insiders have been telling Phil to rid himself of this guy who has done more harm than good. And like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, et al they do it right before an election… WOW, what a strategy!!!!
But, like the train in “Silver Streak”, there doesn’t appear to be a way to stop the damn thing b/f it goes crashing through the rail station…
(Please someone tell me they have seen this movie and get the reference…)
Editors Note: I compare Phil’s piss poor, treat me like the Queen attitude to a certain professional baseball team whose longstanding tradition of winning grates on me as steel wool would on human flesh.
That is why it should be said that I hate the f*(&)(&**()ing New York Yankees…
And with that, I bid you a fond good evening…
I love it when CADTS speaks from the heart…it’s kinda sexy!
Er … right.
Just FYI, that “Rules” link truly is not as eye-catching as you seem to think. I only posted here the one time, and on that occasion I completely missed it. (Also, at the time, you seemed to assume I was a close associate of the GovPhil people. I’ve met Brian from Calitics exactly once in person, briefly. I forget whether he’s also blogging at GovPhil, I think not.)
I find your work very interesting an informative, but I do wish you’d give those of us who volunteer for campaigns (unpaid, mind you) a little more benefit of the doubt. There’s a world of difference between a person with a strong enough opinion to feel like it’s worth spending time and effort trying to change things through electoral politics, and a paid astroturfer. Have the comments on your site really been used by people who were trying to conceal their identity and portray themselves as grassroots, when they were in fact paid? I’d consider that dishonest, and if it turned out a candidate I had been working for was bankrolling it, I’d be mad as hell. I think some of the folks who have gotten rude and aggressive did so because you essentially implied that they were the kind of person who would do that, which offended their sense of honor. I was a bit hurt by that implication myself, when you emailed me, but tried to keep a cool head about it, since I can understand that kind of thing may well happen from time to time, and I imagine I’d get fed up with it rather quickly, too.
Would you consider maybe moving some of that “About” stuff up above the “Recent Posts” section, so folks like me are more likely to notice it and play by your rules correctly on their first try?
Thanks,
RM ‘Auros’ Harman
Chair, Santa Clara County Grassroots Steering Committee, Angelides ’06
(PS: Is the above sufficient to meet your rules? Thanks again…)
Bill, it’s your site to run as you please. 10-4.
My unsolicited two bits: the Rules’ phrases “principal purpose” “spin/advocate” and “on BEHALF of a campaign” are not very precise, and may not give fair warning to some newcomers who DON’T know what you’ve else been putting up with. As distinguished from the coordinated swarming and fake-name pro spin b.s., a lot of activists do blog “advocacy” (aka spin) on their own which *isn’t* campaign-directed or organized (“on behalf”?) even though often reciting the party-line talking points. I know that the campaign leadership and pro spinners have been warned. But perhaps some visitors honestly don’t understand.
If you intend the Rules to require “disclosure” from anyone who has ANY role whatsoever in ANY political advocacy organization, which is fine, perhaps you ought to more precisely and prominently spell that out in The Rules, if only to stifle these recurrent sidebars and claims of innocence. It’s still August and the storm isn’t even here yet….
I’m not going to waste much more my time with this.
It is clear enough.
ounce of prevention… that said, 10-4.
I get your poiint, but there is nothing more I can do WITH THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SITE .. clue … and I am going to spend no more energy on it in the interim.