Latinos are a typically underpolled minority, and Latino votes will make a huge impact  partially because of language issues, but also for a lundry list of other reasons.  That undercounting could end up having a big impact this November, as even national news sources (h/t CPR) are picking up the growing discontent with the Governator amongst Latinos.

[Arnold Schwarzenegger] “cut the budget for the schools,” Gonzales said. Her answer is not unusual in this heavily Hispanic section of Los Angeles County. Mentioning the Republican governor elicits an almost invariably negative opinion about him.

The harsh views illustrate how far Schwarzenegger’s star has fallen among Hispanics since the heady days of the 2003 recall election, when he won 32 percent of their vote. That accomplishment was magnified because his main Democratic opponent was Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Hispanic.

Today, polls indicate Schwarzenegger’s support among Hispanic voters is much lower as he seeks re-election. A recent survey by San Jose State University found 58 percent supported his Democratic rival, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, while just 12 percent supported the governor.  (ABC News 7/22/06)

It’s now a well-known cliche (and cited in the ABC News article) that the Governor must win at least a third of the Latino vote in order to win the race.  The best poll I’ve seen of Latino issues is the PowerPac poll that has Arnold with 25% support.  However, that poll is a bit old.  More recent polls have him a bit lower.  If Latino voter participation is high, I think we might be in store for a surprising result come November.

You take a few hours away from the computer, and a whole bunch of stuff comes down the pike.  (H/t to juls) First, SurveyUSA released their monthly governor approval poll. Here’s the graph, which is also available in the PollHQ.

Next, the CDP and the CRP (what a perfect acronym) are making another ad volley. The CDP fired first with this Angelides ad poking at Arnold as “an actor, not a leader.” The ad criticized Schwarzenegger for cutting soical services and highlighted the fact that Angelides has fought him the whole time.  It’s a great ad, especially if this were the primary, a little less great now.  It relies on the disapproval of Arnold, which, while sliding down to 57%, is still quite high.

The CRP followed up with their ad, another in a series of “Moving California Forward.” You know that series where they glorify him and do their best at putting lipstick on their “moderate” pig.  You know the funny part about Arnold’s “moderate” thing is that the GOP has moved far enough to the right where perhaps to some he looks moderate.  But the real fact behind this is that he has done nothing for the GOP in terms of making the party as a whole more electable in California.  Tom McClintock is still the same Tom McClintock. Go right down their list of candidates in competitive races, and moderates are few. 

And I still don’t yield the term “moderate” to Arnold anyways.  A “moderate” wouldn’t make that stupid tax pledge that binds our government to the post and doesn’t allow for true investment in our infrastructure.  A “moderate” doesn’t call a special election to cut unions off at the knees and to pull off a Delay-esque mid-decade redistricting.  No, Arnold talks a new, more moderate game, but he’s the same “reformer” he was last November.

Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.  I had the honor to view the Governor’s splendid presentation.  Ok, that’s all I could do of that.  After making the crowd wait in the very hot, very stuffy Herbst Theater on what could be one of the hottest days in SF of the year, he strolls in 45 minutes late.  I can deal with that, but then he strolls on stage to pronounce how he has “sold California.”  Yeah, more like “sold California out,” but I held my tongue.  No point getting thrown out of there. I sat through his whole “selling California” lecture and waited for the Q&A portion.

One of the first questions was something to the tune of “Why do we go over there and support the Chinese regime that has been brutal to its citizens, especially the Falun Gong.” Well, I’m pretty sure Arnold didn’t know what or who the Falung Gong was and preceded to say how business is business and how they don’t muddle in the affairs of our government and we shouldn’t mess with theirs.  Well, that’s all well and good, but we don’t systematically suppress any religious organizations as the Chinese government does.  But, Arnold is no Chinese scholar, so I could understand his confusion.

However, Arnold is supposed to be an expert on California politics.  You know, maybe he would know what all of the propositions were on the upcoming ballot. Like say, Proposition 89, the CAN’s clean money initiative.  When asked about Prop 89, he hemmed and hawed about how he would have to read the proposition but he supports clean money.  Well, ok he supports clean money, but well not so much the clean part.  When the moderator asked him whether he actually supported public financing, Arnold immediately said no.  Perhaps he should take a look into at least a two sentence summary of all of the propositions.  It would be nice to have an informed governor. Frank at CPR has a good post on this.

But what really set me off was Arnold’s absolute denunciation of “universal health care.” In one sentence he said it was unacceptable to have 6.7 million Californians without health care, and then he states his hatred of “universal health care.” He goes on to say how he is against government interference.  What is Arnold afraid of about “universal health care.” Is it that universal health care would yield the worst results in terms of cost effectiveness in all Western industrialized nations? Nope, can’t be that, because the U.S. (and our wonderful private insurance system) already hold’s the title for that.  Is there any moral argument that you can present to me that those with the least are less worthy of medical than those with the most.  I challenge anybody to present me with such an argument.  What is more basic of a right than the right to live a healthy life?  We owe every one of our citizens, from rich to poor, the same level of care.  There should be no distinction, but Arnold is A-OK with such class distinction.

No, what Arnold really fears about the evil “universal health care” is the well of GOP dollars that might dry up.  And that is putting money over lives, a morally inexcusable position.

Matthew Dowd, Schwarzenegger’s key strategist and former George W. Bush campaign staffer, has more than one gig.  Not only does he work for Arnold, he also does some side consulting.  One of his clients? AT&T.  You know, the company that has a huge stake in the telecommunications bill currently up for debate and likely headed to Arnold’s desk before the end of the session in September.  Yup, that AT&T:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top campaign advisor is being paid to provide marketing strategy to AT&T Inc. at a time when the governor’s office is involved in negotiations on legislation potentially worth billions of dollars to the telecommunications giant. Political consultant Matthew Dowd’s involvement with the governor and AT&T at the same time presents, at minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, government watchdogs warned.

Dowd and his consulting firm are currently assisting San Antonio-based AT&T with the rollout of its U-verse service in Texas. The product is designed to compete with cable TV by sending television programming and a bundle of Internet and communications services over existing and upgraded telephone lines. At the same time, in California, AT&T is lobbying for passage of a bill being carried by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), AB 2789, that would ease the financial and regulatory burdens of installing the new technology for the industry.

“If AT&T hired Dowd to sell TV, and Dowd also has been hired to sell Schwarzenegger on TV, you’ve got to wonder if Dowd also is selling your governor on AT&T’s legislative agenda for TV,” said Andrew Wheat, a public interest activist. Wheat is research director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks the influence of money and corporate power in the state’s politics.(LA Times 7/18/06)

Arnold needs to inform Dowd that he can work for AT&T or him.  He can’t have it both ways; the impropreity is just oozing out of this situation.
 

Arnold vetoed $1.5 million for additional safety inspectors:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto to strike funding for 15 new workplace safety inspectors, a move the union representing the inspectors says is based on the same type of injury reporting that was exposed as faulty on the $1 billion Bay Bridge skyway project.
In his veto message that accompanied his June 28 signing of the $131.4 billion state budget, Schwarzenegger said he was deleting the $1.5 million for 15 new positions based on a report showing that “workplace injuries and fatalities in California are well below the national average.”

The decision to wipe out such a small sum was seen by labor representatives as a further erosion of an agency that has long been understaffed and overburdened.

The situation is especially grave, they say, in light of the boom in public works projects that would result from the November passage of four infrastructure bonds totaling $37 billion.

“There are going to be a lot more workplaces and risk of injury,” said Chris Voight, spokesman for the California Association of Professional Scientists. “With so few inspectors now, what’s the likelihood that this situation’s going to improve?” (Oakland Tribune 7/15/06)

Why are we vetoing $1.5 million when we will soon be building all these big road projects.  It just doesn’t seem to make any sense.

(Check out the Poll HQ – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Rasmussen has Phil Angelides running ever so slightly ahead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. (h/t to Kate Fulmar and Julia).  The media, and the right wing blogs had begun to say that this was Arnold’s race to lose.  Not so fast there:

Our first election poll here since California’s June 6 primaries shows the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Phil Angelides, with a narrow lead of 46% to 44% over the incumbent.

Our April survey had shown Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opening up a substantial lead over the Democratic contenders, but by May the race had tightened once again.(Rasmussen July 13, 2006))

As Julia pointed out, Arnold is spending a ton of money on ads already.  Phil…not so much.  Even considering that Rasmussen had the race tight before, it’s got to be disconcerting for the governor to have spent all that money for nothing.  I think those ads featuring Westly quotes just aren’t as effective as the GOP thought they would be.  For one thing, the turnout in the Dem primary indicated that Westly wasn’t a huge draw.

As always, this new poll will be reflected in the Calitics Poll HQ.

(originally wrote for dkos and mydd)
Let me set something straight here folks, here in California we will have a new Governor in November and his name will be Phil Angelides. Arnold Schwarzenegger will go back to making bad movies and California will be delivered from Wilson-ian nefariousness.

However, I am now going to use this post to both tell you why this will happen, and take a few well deserved potshots at naysayers, people still fighting the primary and a few other folks (including Arnold)…

Let’s start off positive, Phil Angelides is the best candidate we’ve had for Governor in years. Why do I say this?

We’ll start with his announcement to run in early 2005, when Arnold’s poll numbers were ridiculously high. Lockyer passed, Feinstein passed, Newsom wasn’t interested, nobody wanted anything to do with being a sacrificial lamb. Yet Phil Angelides, a lifelong mostly backbencher party building democrat stepped up to the plate and said:
“Me, I will do it, because it needs to be done.”

He said this knowing full well that it was going to be an uphill battle, both ways. He said this knowing that to be pragmatic he would need to do some pretty unpopular things like raising taxes (blasphemy!), to pay down the preposterous debt the rolling blackouts and Enron have caused, and the ridiculous bond borrowing Arnold has championed.

Phil Angelides has NEVER been afraid to be a Democrat, not just a Democrat, but a Pragmatic Progressive Democrat.

To get Feinstein AND Boxer to both endorse? That’s a beautiful thing, and it shows the unity between the progressive wing of the party and the establishment. WE AGREE! For once… we finally agree on something, let’s now blow it.

Also he’s friends with Al Franken (college chums I believe) and Matt Groening (the Simpsons/Futurama), major cool points there.

ok so let’s talk issues:

 

in May in Santa Monica, Angelides announced his support for Vinod Khosla’s Clean Alternative Energy Initiative which, if enacted, would assess oil company profits by $4,000,000,000 over the next ten years and use the proceeds to invest into research for alternative energy such as ethanol. The measure has language explicitly preventing oil producers from passing the costs on to consumers. It also would reduce California’s oil dependency by 25% over the next ten years, and would increase the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

pretty good right?
All of those bunk attacks about his enviornmental record are ridiculous

Westly’s ads in that matter were later criticized by the executive directors of Vote the Coast, Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters, and California Coastal Protection Network in a letter saying “All of the environmental organizations who do endorsements believe Phil has the vision to be the greenest governor California has ever had. Don’t let Steve Westly’s attacks prevail over the environmental movement’s best judgement in this election.”

See?

ok, how about this:

On May 23, 2006 Angelides wrote Barbara Boxer, a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, urging her to support net neutrality.

she did, and is one of it’s biggest advocate now.
Also pretty good.

Just the other day Angelides expressed his support for equal  rights, and pledged to legalize same-sex marriage if elected governor, stating

“I would sign the marriage equality bill because I believe if we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing.”

that’s huge!

Look, I could sit here and quote issues all day, or you can look for yourself

Ok, for those who are still sore that Westly didn’t win, i’m going to say three words for you:
GET OVER IT

Hey i’m sorry, your candidate didn’t win, it happens, every time you trash talk the nomineee you make it that much easier for Arnold to continue on his merry way pretending to be some kind of moderate while he destroys everything good about California.

Is that what you want?
Is Steve Westly that important to you?
Would you rather burn the village to save the village?

If you have nothing nice to say, please don’t say anything at all, that is my request of you. If you feel you must say something bad, please keep it from being vicious, this *IS* our next governor we’re talking about, and he and Steve have already buried the hatchet.

As for those, who only apparantly started paying attention to this race a few weeks before the primary. I’m sorry if you think that both candidates stink and it was relentlessly negative. Both candidates were actually good, but it was relentless negative, that much I will concede. I’m mad that Westly’s words are being used to attack Phil, but i’m not surprised.

A lot of that blame can go to Garry South, a famous negative campaigner, who was Gray Davis’ axe man.

You guys remember good ol’ Gray right? Nobody liked him, but he was a ruthless campaigner… yeah, there you go.

The compaint everybody had about the campaign was how negative it was, the message was given, hopefully we will learn from this and move on and be better for it.

Now as for Arnold?
Oh man, that’s a whole extra post, but let’s look at it this way (especially for those outside of California), he’s never had to win in a regular election.

The recall election was a fiasco whose special series of events will (hopefully) never happen again. Democrats were divided completely about what to even do, and Arnold snuck in by having the star power.

He has never had to debate before, not in a real debate anyway… the recall debates were a joke in the worst way.

Also, he’s tied in to Enron and the rolling blackmail in the worst way.

Palast’s archives have much more on that.

(you’ll want to read that article)

Anyway Arnold’s faux moderate push may be gaining him numbers in the short term, but there are a lot of people that remember how he treated the nurses and firefighters and policemen…

hell there are a lot of people who won’t think it’ll be as “funny” to vote for him this time either.

Either way, Phil Angelides is the best gubernatorial candidate we’ve had in years, and he will be the best Governor as well, but only with your help.

volunteer
contribute

-C.

(cross-posted on BetterCA and DailyKos)

Arnold wants to win re-election and will do just about anything to do so.  Just look at who he hired to run his campaign, the Bush/Cheney team who managed turn a war hero into a flip-flopper and an draft dodger into a tough leader.  The Merc does a great job profiling these imports and their hardball tactics.

Steve Schmidt, campaign manager: [snip]

Schmidt ran Bush’s re-election war room and rapid response team — which provides immediate responses to opponents’ assertions — during the Democratic National Convention, has served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s spokesman, and was a member of Karl Rove’s inner circle.

As the rapid response guy for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, he was responsible for creating sympathy for Alito by pounding home the image of his sobbing wife during tough grilling.

The man is getting paid an amazing $52,000 a month.  In contrast. Cathy Calfo, Angelides campaign manager is earning $15,000.  I guess bullets are expensive.

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist: The man who plotted strategy for Bush’s 2004 re-election, Dowd is close to Rove — the two once taught a class together on campaigning as political opponents, before Dowd joined Rove’s Texas shop in 1998.

Dowd is known for his successful microtargeting strategy and advertising on cable TV.

Alex Castellanos, political advertising: Considered the Republican Party’s ultimate political hit man, Castellanos is best known for producing searing negative ads. His 1990 “White Hands” ad is considered one of the most racially divisive in campaign history. It featured an angry white worker crumpling up a job-rejection notice after losing it “because they had to give it to a minority.”

Castellanos is also the guy responsible for the subliminal “rats” ad in 2000.  The GOP had an ad up attacking Gore’s prescription drug campaign and for 1/30th of a second the word “rats” flashed across the screen.  At the time Castellanos denied that he put it in there.  However, even after it was brought to his attention, he continued to run the ad as is for another two weeks, before finally yanking it.

The governor has tried to stay away from the unpopular president as much as possible.  Instead, he has hired Bush’s brain trust.  These are the guys who worked for one of the most divisive administrations in history.  Their record of lowest common denominator politics is deplorable.

Salon writes:

Over the years Castellanos has produced a trail of caustic ads either pulled off the air, like the Bush spot in Florida, or judged by his own Republican clients to be too misleading or biting for public consumption. Yet today, because of his expertise at the negative, he has been given a central role in the Bush campaign.

Steve Schmit, learned from one of the most successful campaign operatives, Karl Rove.  Rove was not successful because he runs positive campaigns.  Rove’s strategy usually consists “of taking your own weakness and turning it into your opponent’s weakness instead, through relentless misrepresentation of facts.”  Do not be surprised to see this strategy crop up at some point in the race.

Schmidt seems to have adapted a Castellanos strategy: it is true because I say so.  Evidently accoriding to Castellanos, false advertising is “freedom and democracy on display”.

“You know, ultimately all this messy stuff we have in politics, all this conflict, all this chaos — by another name, it’s freedom. And I think that a country that has fought so hard to earn its freedom and keep its freedom shouldn’t give an ounce of it away,” he once said on a 1998 documentary broadcast on PBS. “If you take all the negative aspects out of politics, if you take all the divisiveness out of politics, what you’re left with is, is very bland, unimaginative oatmeal.”

I guess you can twist the flag into just about anything.  Personally, I would much rather have a debate over the issues and a vibrant Democracy, rather than discourage participation with false advertising.

This is the stellar team that Arnold has put together.  This cycle is not going to be pretty.  They will stop at nothing to get Arnold re-elected and that is just the way he wants it.  This is the Bush legacy in all its glory.