Daily Archives: October 26, 2006

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Blog Roundup

Odds & Ends 10/26

6 Comments

(The entire $650K of the Sacto ad buy will be going for Pombo. They must have some nasty polling. We can win this one. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Lots of goings on.  The new PPIC poll came out.  Bill Carrick thinks the likely voter model is overly generous to the GOP.

More teasers: Phil Angelides, John Chiang, Nicole Parra, The Bonds, NRCC getting desperate and more.

  • The NRCC is getting really, really worried about CA-11 and CA-04.  They took out a $650K ad buy in Sacramento.  That buys a lot of ads in Sacramento.  It’s not clear how much money is going to either candidate, but to be sinking so much money in these 2 districts this late in the game, indicates that they are scared.  Really scared.
  • Phil Angelides has released a new ad.  Check it out on his video page. It’s actually a pretty good ad, and it hits on the “good ideas” theme.  Not bad… It’s a statewide ad buy. 
  • CA-Gov: PPIC Poll pretty much holds steady, shows Schwarzenegger up by 18 points. Carrick says the poll is “weird” and “wrong”. It’s a slow and static look at the electorate. Carrick thinks their likely voter is a bit screwey. The Angelides people think the lead is smaller, more in line with the Rasmussen poll.
  • Speaking of that PPIC Poll, there are some numbers on the bonds on there.  I’ve said in the past that I think at least two of the the bonds will fail, and I was actually talking only about 1B-1E.  I actually think 84 will likely fail as well.  I think this year will be a really bad year for propositions in general.  People are really sick of voting on propositions, and will likely just end up voting no on most of the props.  Well, that’s my hunch anyway.  So, without further blabber, here are those bond #s:

    Prop. 1B (Transportation-$19.9b)
    Yes: 51%
    No: 38%
    Prop. 1C (Housing-$2.8b)
    Yes: 56%
    No: 34%
    Prop. 1D (Education-$10.4b)
    Yes: 51%
    No: 39%
    Prop. 1E (Levees/Flood-$4.09b)
    Yes: 53%
    No: 36%
    Prop. 84 (Water/Parks-$5.4b)
    Yes: 42%
    No: 43%

  • Intuit is trying to buy itself some friends.  This time in the controller’s office.  Intuit, it seems, does not like when state governments do stuff, like provide services for free that it wants to sell.  Their big beef is that Westly pushed a system that allowed you to easily file your state income taxes electronically and easily, for free.  Ready Return was, and remains, an excellent idea.  It will likely only affect taxpayers with fairly simple taxes, that would likely go to H&R Block or some other similar service.  Too bad these companies are putting profits ahead of the interest of Californians.  Just business I suppose.  Support John Chiang for Controller.
  • Speaking of Chiang, he responds to those Independent Expenditures against him in the SF Chron.
  • In one of the few competitive races in the Assembly, Nicole Parra is locked up with an interesting race with Danny Gilmore.  Parra will likely win, but it’s been eventful, as reported in Capitol Weekly.
  • Anna Caballero is preparing to be a great legislator from Salinas. (Capitol Weekly)
    • Arnold Schwarzenegger

    Ca-Gov: New Angelides Ad: Performance

    2 Comments

    Here it is:

    My initial thoughts are that it’s pretty good, it sticks to the issues at hand and basically asks the simple question “Who do you trust?”  It also hammers the line from the debate that the 2005 Special Election initiatives were “good ideas.”

    UPDATE: I just got off a conference call with Angelides spokesman Bill Carrick.  Here’s what came out of it:

    • This is a statewide ad buy.
    • The key point he wanted to make in the ad is that the Governor’s campaign is a fraud – “the elephant in the room” (a somewhat clever play on words)
    • The three big points Angelides makes at the end of the ad is that he would fully support and fund CA schools, roll back tuition and fees, and push for a middle-class tax cut.
    • Carrick characterized the PPIC poll released today showing an 18-point Schwarzenegger lead as “wrong – an exaggerated, conservative, white look at the electorate.”  He says the campaign’s internal polls show it to be a single-digit race.
    • In addition to Howard Dean today and Obama-Pelosi-Villaraigosa tomorrow, Sens. Kerry and Boxer will campaign with Angelides in Pasadena on Monday.
    • The only thing any of the idiot reporters asked about was the PPIC poll because horse-race is all they can manage to understand.

    Uncategorized

    Why I support Alix Rosenthal in D-8 in SF

    I know, this is pretty darn local.  But, just in case anybody who is reading this is also in my district, I thought I would share this.  It’s not that I don’t think Bevan is a good guy.  He is.  He’s a really good guy. Every time I’ve talked to him, he’s been very nice and pretty darn helpful.

    But as they say, nice isn’t really the most important feature of a politician. The record of Bevan Dufty is well, not so nice.  District 8 is arguable the most “progressive” of any district.  Yet somehow, our supervisor is one of the more conservative members of the Board.  Now, I’ll admit that Dufty is clearly progressive, but in my opinion, not enough. 

    He votes with Gavin Newsom almost all of the time.  And again, the Mayor, not a bad guy, just more conservative than the district.  Dufty has encouraged Ellis Act evictions and additional condo conversions; it’s why the SF Tenants Union has endorsed Alix.

    As I said, Dufty is a good guy, but I’m not sure he really sees the forest for the trees.  He focuses on small issues and fixes them.  Great! But why are those issues there in the first place? That’s what we need to address.  That’s the critical thing that Dufty seems to miss. He treats the symptoms, but never actually addresses the sickness. Alix, on the other hand, really seems to understand the relevant issues.

    So, if you happen to live in District 8 of San Francisco, Vote for Alix Rosenthal.

    Uncategorized

    Prop 89: Special Interests’ “No” on 89 Ad – Thick With Irony

    ( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

    (cross posted to dKos)

    I’m a proponent of California’s Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I like to keep tabs on what the other side is doing. It helps me understand what they’re telling people, so I can counter it. So, I’ve been waiting for the Stop 89 people to come out with their TV ads. Well it appears they have. You can see one for yourself.

    It has all the requisite feel-good items: Dad is sitting on the front step, while the kids are out playing with the dog. We’ve got happy soothing music in the background, and Dad explains to us that he really, really wants to reign in the special interests, but just can’t:

    I’d love to reign in the special interests that control our state politics. That’s what I thought Prop 89 did. Than I read up on it. It turns out that Prop 89 was written by the special interests. It would stick us with $200 million dollars in new taxes, creating a campaign slush fund for politicians to use as they see fit. Can you believe it? It is like welfare for politicians.

    Where to begin? First, it’s telling that he doesn’t name the special interests who wrote Prop 89. I guess if you consider average people to be special interests, then maybe he’s right. Sure, the California Nurses Association is a big proponent of the initiative, but that hardly means they wrote it. It leverages a lot of AB583, which was good legislation held up by special interests. And it’s supported by good government groups like California Common Cause, Public Campaign and the League of Women Voters. The ideas written into Prop 89 have been working well in other states for years.

    Sticking US with $200 million dollars in new taxes? Well, if “us” is corporations, then technically “yes”. Prop 89 won’t raise taxes on individuals. And lest you worry about the corporations, the modest increase in their tax rate still keeps it under the rate in place from 1980 to 1996. Funny how when you cut taxes, any restoration becomes a “new” tax. And it won’t be a “slush fund for politicians”. There are practical qualification requirements. Candidates need popular support in the form of many $5 contributions to run under this system. Isn’t it better for the public to fund them than special interests? Who do we want them to remember once they are in office?

    Which brings me to the final irony – this ad tells you how bad the special interests are, and ends with the required “Paid for by Californians to Stop 89, a coalition of business and taxpayer organizations and California Business Political Action Committee, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and ChevronTexaco”. Oh, now I feel better. ChevronTexaco is a name I trust when I’m trying to understand who the special interests are. And there are many more ganging up to fight this initiative.

    Let’s make sure that Californians aren’t fooled by this ad – lend your support to 89now.org and stop the real special interests.