California, Here We Go

A lot of campaigns don't pay much attention to us up here in the north country. It's a relatively small population spread over a lot of territory, we're isolated and our issues are often particular to this region. Not that I haven't personally heard from Bill and Hillary today (Bill called in favor of Prop 87, Hillary is against 85) but there are advantages to our remoteness--mainly a minimum of robocalls. And maybe judging statewide campaigns from here isn't quite fair, but...

A couple of years ago, I recall reading an article somewhere about a new breed of Democratic politician coming from state government, tough minded and effective, while committed to a populist agenda: a highly electable combination. The two prominent examples were Eliot Spitzer in New York and Phil Angelides in California... Now Spitzer is ahead in his contest for NY Governor by about a zillion points, and Angelides is behind in California by double digits.

Up here, the Angelides campaign has been all but invisible. Even Attorney General candidate Jerry Brown seems to have many more TV spots (and better ones). So I can't judge exactly what went wrong with Phil's candidacy, but I do know of one opportunity he blew. Shortly after he emerged battered but victorious from the primary, both houses of the California legislature passed a comprehensive universal health care bill. Arnold announced he would veto it.

Health care is a crucial issue in this state, perhaps even more than elsewhere. Angelides was up against the Hollywood Hero, who has transferred that image to the political realm, despite also playing the Villain in both venues. What Angelides needed was a way to be a hero, and health care was handed to him on a platter. If he had announced his support of that bill, challenged Ahnold on it, hammered on this issue, he would have been in the media every day, and he would have at least defined himself. But he may also have found a winning issue.

I am not the only one who felt this was a missed opportunity, not only for Angelides, but for California families, individuals and businesses in critical condition because of the high cost of health care and insurance. Instead of taking this risk, with its enormous opportunity, Angelides seems to have favored a conservative campaign of depending on union support, particularly education unions. They may have won the primary for him, but it is unlikely they will make him governor. And he remains as vague as Ahnold about what he would do on health care.

I am very disappointed in Angelides and his campaign, but Ahnold is a stealth disaster--he plays the moderate and even liberal part, but his off-stage actions run counter to the image. He does not deliver. Although not a terribly clever or effective ad line, in this at least Angelides deriding Ahnold as an actor, not a leader, is accurate. So I will vote for Phil, because he'd be better than Ahnold.

I notice that progressives have pretty much moved on to the more promising down-ballot candidates, and we do have some very good people. Debra Bowen will make an outstanding secretary of state--a very Diebold-conscious one, very astute and articulate. She will not only make the election system work, she will bring the public along in the process. If I needed a reason to vote where my vote could make a difference, she's it.

John Garamendi for Lt. Governor is by all accounts an outstanding public servant, and his Republican opponent is a neocon who even Ahnold is keeping his distance from. Jerry Brown should make an entertaining attorney-general, Bill Lockyer is probably sorry he didn't pursue the governorship but he can stay in the game as state treasurer, and John Chiang for controller.

I have no problem voting for Senator Dianne Feinstein, (otherwise known as Di-Fi), especially because she is one of the few Senators who pays attention to nuclear proliferation and the Bush stealth plans for nuclear rearmament. Despite her reputation for pro-financial institution votes, she was a courageous and sane voice on the bankruptcy bill.

We also have one of the nation's best members of the House of Representatives (and best kept secrets, which may soon change) to re-elect: Rep. Mike Thompson. Both are effectively unopposed.

We've got the usual ridiculous number of propositions on the ballot. I really wish they would go away, but amongst the stinkers at least this time there are some worthy ones. So I vote NO
on 83, 85 (more so-called parental notification bullshit that is a prime reason people hate propositions--we voted this one down before) and NO on 90-- especially 90-- which could have disastrous effects here as a similiar stealth proposal is having in Oregon. Among other things, it makes enforcing environmental regulations nearly impossible. Erik V. Kirk at SoHum Parlance calls it "the worst proposition to make it to the California ballot since Lynden LaRouche's concentration camps for AIDS victims proposal."

I'm voting YES on 87, the alternative energy proposal, which the petroleum lobby has spent millions on defeating. Yes on 84 (water quality and supply), 89 (public financing of campaigns) and 86 (cigarette tax to fund health care. ) Then there's 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E (you think I'm kidding. I wish.) which I haven't yet braved.

What's really maddening about this: propositions were supposed to be a way citizens could go directly to the people, but instead they are either put on the ballot by wealthy and stealthy interests or opposed by same, and both sides wind up spending millions of dollars and taking up everybody's time. Then if a proposition passes it often gets screwed up by state government, turns out to be illegal or unworkable, or has unintended consequences. I wish I could point to one proposition that has changed things for the better. If you know of one, let me know, because this whole process is too time-consuming to be anything but depressing otherwise.