My sense is that Angelides needs to do more than just say Arnold = Bush. A big part of the reason why Arnold is surviving last year's fiasco is that he is a larger than life personality while Angelides is...uh...not. Arnold can attract all the free media he wants at any time and Angelides has to hold up a bank to get anyone to pay him any attention.

Before he can possibly gain significant traction by attacking Arnold, Angelides needs to find a way to reintroduce (introduce?) himself to the public in a positive way. I've suggested that he run a self-deprecating ad where he tries to act in a Western or something like that, only to say at the end, "Okay, maybe I'm not an actor like my opponent, but at least I know where I stand on the issues that matter to real Californians."

Right now, his campaign is falling on deaf ears. He has to wake people up and give them a reason to like him. Then, maybe, they'll listen to his message.

katerina and all -

Comparing Arnold to Bush ("Schwarzenegger showed his Bush-like colors") is not going to win Angelides anything. For one thing, its not true, and Californians know it. Yes, they are both Republicans, but the similarity ends there.

The primary gripes about Bush are that he is uanble to change and recognize when he is wrong, something Arnold has admirably done after trying to take on the unions and failing miserably. Contrast Arnold's current response with Bush's reaction (or non-reaction) to losing the Social Security reform fight. Other criticisms of Bush are his dishonesty, lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of respect for basic American values, and complete lack of caring about the environment. Arnold has none of these qualities. In particular his environmental credentials are impeccable. He has gone to war with the Bush administration in this area, and that says a lot.

The main criticism about Arnold, from what I've heard, is his over-honesty. He has a way of saying in public what many people think in private, and getting away with it. But he's Arnold, so what are you going to do. If you want a larger than life figure as your governor you have to put up with some inappropriate comments.

The other main cricitism of him is that he supports business interests, but California as a whole is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal state (I mean old-school fiscal conservativism, not the new Bush "spend, spend" type). He can slide by on the business interests issue.

I voted against Arnold in the recall election, and I did not support him in his fight against the unions. However, I believe there's a real perception in California that Arnold, who most people like as a person, has learned a lot of lessons in the past few years. I know a lot of moderate Democrats who will be voting for him. I might be tempted to myself (Except I just left the state for work, so it is a moot issue for me). He does make life interesting, and it may be easier to keep him around than to have to housebreak a new governor.

Angelides could still win, but I don't think he has the guts. California has a lot of problems right now, and no good solutions. Arnold has done a good job of kicking the can down the road and trying to keep everything running. If Angelides wants to win, about the only thing he could do would be to come up with concrete and far reaching solutions to the issues hitting middle class Californians at home - out of control and now crashing real estate markets, lower quality of life, traffic, traffic everywhere, immigration, and state budget and pension problems. I don't see Angelides tackling those issues head on, because they are not consensus issues, and they are tough, delicate, walk the line issues. In fact, no California governor has addressed the state's real problems in about 20 years, Republican or Democrat, which is part of the state's problem. Arnold has done a better job than most, which is why I see him keeping the job.

Lastly, if the last four years have taught us anything its that divided government is the best government.

And who would have thought I would ever be defending a Republican governor for California? Not I....

My story line: "He may have changed for the better. He really may have. But we saw how quickly he changed when he was no longer running for election. We trusted Bush and look where it led us. We trusted Schwarzenegger once and he, too, stabbed us in the back. Do we want to trust this Bush Republican again?"

As a young person (under 30), I resent the fact that Arnold and so-called fiscally conservative Californians are "kicking the can" down the road. Arnold hasn't fixed any of the structural deficits--few credible economists believe he has. He has made college less attainable. He had to shelf some pretty atrocious policy proposals because he was hoping to pass his ballot initiatives and didn't want any more opposition. I could go on. I'm guessing you haven't browsed Angelides' policy positions--and his record as Treasure. He's one of the most competent of anyone vying for governor, including incumbents. I know I'd be better off in the future if Angelides became governor.

For the record, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" as understood by Schwarzenegger and most GOP is a fantasy like "compassionate conservative". Fiscally conservative doesn't mean cut taxes no matter what. I hate when people claim to be fiscally conservative while they are just waiting for my generation to pick up the tab.

Sorry for the rant, but I find the way "popular" government is currently being run offensive and unfair. The bills are going to have to be collected at some point and Schwarzenegger is doing nothing to decrease my future bill. Nothing! Unintentionally starving the "beast" is still starving the "beast".

They all know they will be the governor in just 4 years if Angelides isn't elected.

I find that terribly upsetting and probably true. I think Angelides is one of the most competent leaders in the nation at this point. It's a shame that things developed the way they have after the primary. The Democratic Party seemed to have abandoned him almost overnight, even after having almost unanimously endorsing him in the primary. Sad and pathetic.

I'm concerned that Angelides's campaign is so bad that Dems will lose some other statewide races. Certainly, there will be no long-shot victories in Congressional races (Doolittle, Pombo) as that could only occur in a strong Dem tidal wave year.

Angelides has single-handedly turned back the national Dem tidal wave in California. A remarkable achievement.

Funny that California resisted the Republican wave in 2002 and will likely resist the Dem wave four years later.

Go ahead and rant away... there's certainly enough to rant about. To give you your due, though, I will address your comments paragraph by paragraph:

1) Just to be clear, I did not say that "Arnold hasn't fixed any of the structural deficits"... I merely said that he had done a good job kicking the can down the road. I also think that Arnold will do a better job at kicking the can down the road than Phil will. You may be against kicking the can down the road, but it does seem to be what Californians want.

I have browsed Angelides' policy positions, although I have not dug into them. I would say that I've dug into them more than 99% of Calfifornians, and I can't tell you what Angelides' would DO if he became governor (other than raise taxes on the rich which will, unfortunately, have no effect on me, as I'm not rich). I can't say what Arnold will do either, of course, but probably more of the same, which means pretty much nothing. Given the choice between a movie star who will maintain the status quo and and an unknown who's policy is so vague most people (including me) probably presume he will also maintain the status quo or make matters worse, I can see why most people are going for the movie star.

I maintain that if Angelides wants to win he's got to, as any good political campaign manager will tell you, narrow what he stands for down to two or three really big issues and, in this case, make them a count. A vote for Angelides is a vote FOR... ???? - and its not not a vote against Arnold, who people tend to like. I will also add that Angelides needs to make a clean break with Davis, who made several large economic mis-steps as governor, and nobody wants to go back to that. (Just as Arnold was clear to embrace immigrants during his first campaign because nobody wants to go back to Wilson).

Lastly, you said, "I know I'd be better off in the future if Angelides became governor." How do you know this? I'm curious what he's said or what policy proposal you've read that has convinced you of this.

2) You said, 'For the record, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" as understood by Schwarzenegger and most GOP is a fantasy like "compassionate conservative".' No, because compassionate conservative was never defined. It was a campaign slogan. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal defines a specific set of political beliefs that are addressable as policy. Californians are fiscally conservative - they do not like having their taxes raised (from Prop 13 to Davis's auto registration tax, and everything in between). They also want a balanced budget (who wouldn't?). That makes them fiscally conservative. They also tend to insist on excellent social services (noticeably Arnold lost his little pension revolt) and they are overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro-environment. That makes them socially liberal. So how is that a fantasy?

3) I don't believe that Arnold is trying to "starve the beast" anymore than I believe the people of California are trying to "starve the beast." There's no ideological vendetta here like Bush v. Social Security. Arnold just wants to do what the people want, and the people want to have their government services and not have to pay a lot of taxes. Perhaps the people like a "Ross Perot" like figure to come in and put pressure on all parties to deal with the debt issue. For now, though, you are correct that Arnold is not addressing this problem. He did try to address it, by cutting government services, and he lost that vote. Now, if Phil is elected and tries to raise taxes enough to actually solve the budget problem, and he loses THAT vote, and decides that he'll start kicking the can down the road, too, are you going to hate him as much as you seem to hate Arnold?

I don't think they are going to amend the constitution to allow foreign born citizens becoming President. So perhaps we should say, "The Democrats are damn lukcy that Arnold can't be President..."....

Although, realistically, nationally he'd never win the nomination. Definitely not "Christian" enough... lucky for him you don't have to deal with that stuff in California...