Trailing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides held his last anti-Iraq War rally of the week at a community college a few blocks from his Sacramento home. Although it had a respectable turnout of the state’s political press corps, the event made little impression on the sprawling campus, drawing only about 200 people despite the offer of a free lunch.
Arriving early to check the scene and shoot 45 minutes of video footage of the rally’s set-up, the rally itself, and its aftermath, I found that many students attending the rally had little awareness of Angelides, a major figure in statewide Democratic politics for nearly two decades and a native Sacramentan.
It’s almost unfair to compare with the events of the man he seeks to unseat, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but Angelides is running against him. And, like Schwarzenegger with global warming, Angelides is trying to expand his appeal by speaking out on an international issue, in this case the Iraq War. Although unlike the case with global warming, the California governor has no real power over the Iraq policy.
Schwarzenegger’s event on global warming featured the British prime minister, the governor of New York, the speaker of the California Assembly, and the mayor of San Francisco, as well as top environmental and business leaders. Angelides’ event on the Iraq War featured a Sacramento city councilman and a Bronze Star-winning Vietnam vet.
None of Angelides’ campaign co-chairs have appeared with the candidate at this week’s anti-war rallies. (One, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, is featured at three Schwarzenegger events this week.) While Nunez is a state official, the other three Angelides co-chairs are federal officials with direct involvement on Iraq policy. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are California’s two U.S. senators. Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Although apparently no California political reporter has asked her, my sources tell me Feinstein does not favor Angelides’ attempt to bring California National Guard members home from Iraq.
The Democratic gubernatorial challenger held his final anti-Iraq War rally of the week during the lunch hour yesterday at Sacramento City College. About 200 students attended the event, held in a semi-enclosed area between three buildings. I arrived early and shot 45 minutes of video footage of the set-up of the event, the event itself, and its aftermath, including Angelides’ brief press availability. Although students were enticed to the event by leafleters talking up an anti-war rally and free lunch, much of the crowd did get into the spirit of things once the candidate showed around 12:40 PM.
The spirited candidate, accompanied by his family, dropped any pretense that the governor has power over California National Guard troops on active duty service in the Iraq War. He said that, on his first day as governor, he would formally request that President George W. Bush return California guard members from Iraq. And that he would seek to organize other governors to do the same and perhaps pursue a court case against the administration.
The state treasurer said that there is more torture going on now in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein. He cited an unnamed UN report for that particular nugget. That would get a sharp rejoinder if this were ever to become a major issue in the governor’s race. He said that Schwarzenegger has repeatedly said that the Iraq policy is good. Which, actually, hasn’t happened. It sounded like someone hoping against hope that the governor is foolish enough to straighten that out.
Questioned repeatedly by reporters during his brief press availability about the efficacy and relevance of Angelides’ focus on bringing guard members back from Iraq, which NWN readers have known from the beginning a governor has no power to do, Angelides seemed to say Schwarzenegger was the one who introduced the issue into the campaign, and not him. “Governor Schwarzenegger has repeatedly spoken out on this war,” the candidate claimed. “He has for the past one thousand days defended George W. Bush’s failed war policy. It’s Arnold Schwarzenegger who’s gone on national radio and TV shows to say Bush’s folly in Iraq is the right thing to do.”
Hmm. Anyone else recall all that about Schwarzenegger going so far out of his way to promote the Iraq policy? Actually, he’s said that America needs an exit strategy from Iraq.
Earlier in the day, Schwarzenegger had criticized Angelides for implying he would have any authority as governor to recall the National Guard from Iraq.
“The commander in chief is the president so it is irresponsible for anyone to promise the people anything else to get the troops back, it is absolutely irresponsible,” Schwarzenegger said. “I support fighting the war on terror and having the soldiers come back as soon as possible as soon as we find an exit strategy.”
Angelides countered that it was irresponsible of Schwarzenegger to be supporting the war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, embattled Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee who lost a close Democratic primary to super-rich anti-Iraq War candidate Ned Lamont, darling of the “netroots,” has a big lead in the general election now running as an independent.
Some California Democratic strategists, including those around the Angelides for Governor campaign, had predicted that Lamont’s primary win presaged a surge for Angelides in the California governor’s race.
Angelides moves to a new theme today, going to Malibu to announce his opposition to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal off the coast. He is expected to make some hay out of the fact that First Lady Maria Shriver’s lawyer George Kieffer, is a partner in the Manatt Phelps law firm and that Manatt Phelps is pushing for the LNG project.
Manatt Phelps is a longtime Democratic power in state and national politics. Manatt is former Democratic national chairman and Ambassador Chuck Manatt. Angelides has raised money from the firm.
Read 
| Comments (33) |
Another glorious triumph for Angelides.
The ineptitude of this campaign is amazing. It’s like a car wreck, I just can’t help but watch. Is Angelides running for governor or POTUS?
Mr. Bradley,
I know you said that David Broder’s writing does not carry the weight that his opinions did 20 years ago…but in his Wa. Post article of yesterday (9/28) on Arnold, he not only predicts that Arnold wins but adds:
“Schwarzenegger’s abandonment of a partisan posture has not cost him significant support in his own party, for a simple reason. As the only major Republican elected in this Democratic capitol, he stands as the barrier to higher taxes and more stringent regulation of business.
More important, his current political posture mirrors the makeup of this complex state, where the only growing political group consists of those who decline to state a party preference and where myriad competing racial, ethnic and geographic forces require political leadership with dexterity and flexibility.
Schwarzenegger is providing his party — and the country — with an object lesson in how to survive and thrive in that kind of independent political environment. Others will have to learn.” Washington Post 9/28
I think Mr. Broder hit the nail on its head! I hope all those Dem staffers that were lucky enough to have drinks with him at Vallejo’s read that paragraph that begins with “More important…” Of course the DEMS have their “political leadership with dexterity and flexibility”… and much more! As that sure applies to The Speaker and the Mayor of LA !
I can’t wait for the Infrastucture fly around! …my Housing Infrastructure Bond is going to make it! All the bonds will! …I am visualizing that too!
Mr. Angelides looks like he is running for class president.
When do we see the video?
The video is … in production.
Angelides, incidentally, speaks well and the crowd responds well to his message.
Maybe its not because Phil is so bad as much as its because Arnold is so good.
Everyone take a deep breath. To read the comments on this blog makes one believe that because Phils campaign is in trouble, that Arnold therefor must be doing a great job.
Please do not make that mistake. It seems Arnold will win in NOvember. So the lesson one could draw is that it is fine to have NO principles. To switch positions so casually and effortlessly really betrays a complete lack of conviction. How can anyone trust anything Arnold says?
Now, we may be ok, because we have a split govt and maybe thats the best we can hope for from this disfunctional govt. But, please, lets not pretend Arnold is anything but a typical politician. No better, and arguably alot worse.
Actually, if you read what people are saying, rather than look for an opportunity to say what you are burning to say, ie., Arnold sucks, that’s not what most people here are saying.
They are saying Phil is a bad candidate with a bad campaign.
Not saying Arnold sucks. I wish he had governed the way he has this past year. But what are we to believe? What does he believe in? How can we trust this guy?
Maybe the best that can be said about his policy ‘changes’ is that he has learned on the job.
It seems Bill, you are convinced this is the real Arnold and that last years Arnold was not the real one. I hope so.
As for Phils campaign, its too depressing to talk about. But…the dreamer in me hopes against hope, that Phil will use the rest of the campaign to discuss serious issues. Such as immigration, the budget problems that will reappear unless fundamental reform is enacted, campaign finance, sprawl, continued health problems at the Ports of LA/Long Beach. Sometimes at the end of losing camapigns, a candidate can gain repsect for themselves, but also raise issues w/o regard to whether it helps the campaign. Its almost a liberating experience.
Think Phil as Simon Bolivar!
Sorry, last comment today from me. There is a book by Amy Willentz about California in the Era of Schwarzenegger. Its a pretty easy read and she seems to make fun of the Westside liberal Dem bigwigs like Reiner, Stuart Resnick, Arian huffington etc. She also talks alot about Arnold. I aint no prude, but any woman who reads this book and doesnt get revolted by Arnolds personal behavior, well…
Some here are apparently distraught that the themes harkening back to the long lost days of the 60s and 70s can’t simply be retreaded and put out on the campaign trails of today. I’m not trying to cause a big s-s-sensation, I’m just talking ’bout my g-g-g-generation.
“Phil Angelides held his last anti-Iraq War rally of the week at a community college a few blocks from his Sacramento home. Although it had a respectable turnout of the state’s political press corps, the event made little impression on the sprawling campus, drawing only about 200 people” — Bill
Former president Carter told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided that it has ever been as a result of Bush’s policies” — AP
Yes, thanks, Mitch, I’ve already panned the book. Typical East Coast twit analysis of California, which a certain type of intellectual never understands. It plumbs the shallows of cocktail party cliches.
Mitch, my comments here for weeks have been pretty clear – Angelides is a terrible candidate and his “best and brightest” campaign team has badly misplayed its already weak hand. But please do not confuse my comments with supporting Arnold. I believe Arnold’s lack of core values makes it easy to blow his keel-less ship around. Who knows what the next four years will bring.
But if Phil is going to use his 5+ weeks of lame duck candidacy to discuss important issues, then how about proposing a fiscally responsible solution to the $300 billion in unfunded public employee retirement benefits facing California’s state, local government and school district budgets??
Angelides used his position on CalPERS and CalSTRS to get us into this mess, but so far he is unwilling to discuss the problem…
Because the cost of these benefits is going to define state and local budget battles for the next decade or so, it would be nice to hear Arnold solutions too. But don’t hold your breath.
Kandy: right on re the need for a real discussion about the coming tidal wave of public employee retirement benefits. totally on target. thanks.
Kandy Kid,
Thanks for the comments. I do wonder if the upcoming battles over retirement packages for public employee unions presages the coming generational battle between retirees and the younger voters who will have to pay for pensions, social security etc.
Id favor the old timers and AARP crowd in that one. The older folks get, the more they vote. And AARP is always rated the top lobbying group in DC-followed, I believe by AIPAC and the NRA.
But the time to pay the piper is coming up quickly!
Mitch, this Arnold is the one from before. Unless you are someone who believes that history began in 2005, that’s pretty clear.
Kandy Kid — Arnold already proposed a solution or two concerning the pension system, but I don’t remember the debate being too highbrow on this ‘important’ issue.
Of course, the previous team’s screw-up in ending up with a bill that would have allowed the survivors of cops and firefighters to be denied benefits made it easy for things to quickly descend.
it needs to be a bipartisan solution this time out. younger workers see little value in a CalPers-style plan as they tend to change jobs a lot and therefore get little or nothing from the “defined benefit.”
The Reep plan (or the asshole plan) to remove the benefits for widows and children of fallen firefighters was just plain mean…it better not happen again.
Mark Martin of the San Francisco Chronicle has a very good analysis and background on the BHP Billiton LNG project on the Chronicle politics weblog, under the title “The Biggest Issue You Never Heard Of”.
“young workers see little value in Cal Pers style plan”
What a ton of BS. The best possible way to keep your trained vested public employees is a decent defined retirement. I know guys and girls that barely live out their retirement checks due to cancer, heart problems and other injuries considered to be “just a part of the job”.
Matt or whoever you are you just cost your candidate points.
Okay Carole, a simple question.
For someone retiring from state service at age 55 after working just 25 years at a final salary of $70k, would you consider anything less than a $500k health care package and a $35k/year inflation adjusted income for life “indecent”?
Kandy,
You need to walk the walk…
I am talking real life here…not political mumbo jumbo…the market is up and that should cover the cost(s) associated with the retirement system …that is if the Pete Wilsons keep their muddy paws off…
A county that I once worked for decided too try a two tier retirement system for their county safety employees. Their experiment only lasted a few years because what happened nearly destroyed the entire recruitment process. The second tier employees where hired, then they left for other agencies that had better benefits. The hiring process was left with the least qualified and the county ended up paying more money to research, qualify and train their replacements. I have worked through the big REEP experiment of eliminating defined retirements and I know first hand …IT IS A BIG FAT FAILURE TO ELMINATE THEM. You are forgetting I have walked the walk and witnessed the destruction that a well meaning conservative REEP politician can do…I have also attended enough cop and firefighter funerals to last me a life time.
…Maybe that point spread between Arnold and Phil needs to close a little bit…I wish Westly was our man …this discussion would not be happening…
Carole, you did not answer the question — you changed the subject and quickly resorted to partisanship. Neither is a sign of intellectual honesty.
Can you defend your position that the current benefit package is the minimum requirement for a decent retirement or will you concede that it is okay for non-safety government employees to work to age 60 and then get a substantial monthly check that private sector workers will never see?
If not, was every state worker retirement before 2000 “indecent”?
I am not holding my breath for your response.
Keep holding your breath…I made my point. I have lived my point. As to your comment about my intellectual honesty…KMA.
If you have a better plan than the current …lets hear it?
Okay, I will keep the pension reform details real simple.
1) Establish a non-amendable, standardized 2%@65 second tier for all new state, local and school district employees (2%@55 for Safety), 2) Prohibit employer-paid health insurance until retiree is also covered by MediCare, 3) Require the employer and employee to equally share all pension costs.
These changes would reduce retirement benefits costs for new employees by at least 60% and not take away a single thing from anyone already working for a government agency. It would not change death and disability benefits and would eliminate the competition for new employees you described in your earlier post.
Would such a plan – one still much better than virtually any private sector plan – be considered “indecent”?
I will leave to others a judgment about your needless profanity and intellectual honesty.
2% @ 65 is perfect for the reps and a perfect new Hail Mary for the Phil campaign.
Folks, how about continuing these debates on a current thread.
Few if any but me are looking at this.
Very good inormation but a liitle old.