Monthly Archives: December 2004

Tonight we’ll have another one of those oh-so-clever “debates” between the Mayoral contenders. You can watch it on TV locally at KABC or listen to it on KPFK (which features a live iTunes broadcast as well).
Pre-debate commentary can be found at Mack Reed’s LA Voice, and at LA Observed, and elsewhere.
However, I think once again we (“we’ being pundits, bloggers, press folks, political pros, and associated hangers on) are putting way too much on a debate very few people will bother to watch.
After all, we’re days away from Christmas, and I seriously doubt people are stopping their packing, shopping, wrapping, and partying to stop and watch 3 hours of quippy one liners that will end up sounding like a bad imitation of the chatty dialogue of the Gilmore Girls.
We’re also in the shadow of yet another inquiry into Mayor Hahn’s 2001 campaign fundraising. Yet despite this, and the water-torture of bad news for Mayor Hahn, I’m beginning to wonder if anyone will care once they get to the polls.
I’m not a big fan of the Mayor myself – he has let a lot of opportunities to move the city forward with a vision greater than His Re Election pass through his fingers, and while the hiring of Chief Bratton was a good idea, that’s the only one Hahn has had so far.
It’s clear also that something fishy has been going on vis-à-vis the DWP, Fleishman Hillard, and the 2001 campaign apparatus which is smelling really bad, although there is still lots of searching and investigating, with only a handful of cases coming to light so far.
That said, I’m now starting to wonder, especially in light of recent elections, if that’s enough to see the Mayor earn an early retirement in 2005, or if we’ll need more. While there’s plenty of big talk right now about how Mayor Hahn is the AntiChrist to a concerned group of citizens who are supporting their candidates for Mayor, there’s no indication that the great majority of voting Angelenos are as hot and bothered about this as they are.
Again, I’m not defending the Mayor, or his actions – but I am taking a realistic look at the landscape and seeing a much tougher route for any challenger, with or without a snazzy website and/or witty one liners, than even I’d expected.
Now, while I offer a lay of the land, I have some specifics that could help level the playing field, but as a wise person once told me, “Don’t give away intellectual property you intend to market.” In otherwords, no free advice for Mayoral candidates. See the PayPal link or send me an email for current rates.
Let’s take a look at what anyone out there challenging The Man has to fight in order to get Their Candidate elected:
1. Mayor Hahn has lots of money. There’s a benefit to being an incumbent – you can do all sorts of nice things for people and concerned folks and they’ll like you in return. So much that they’ll give you campaign contributions to reward your hard work on their behalf.
Despite all his troubles, the Mayor continues to out-raise his opponents and has been keeping overhead low. He will have more than enough to pay for a huge campaign that papers over his troubles and talks about crime and Chief Bratton. He will have lots of help with this from labor unions and Democratic Party folks. For now they just keep on raising the campaign cash.
Challengers trying to go tit-for-tat on charge and counter charge against someone with way more money is a mistake. Just ask any one of a number of hopeful reformers who’ve challenged The Man.
Although they don’t have a great website up yet it also means they probably won’t be spending money on one until people actually start paying attention to the campaign next month.
2. Mayor Hahn has Kam Kuwata on his side. Anyone who dismisses the role of Kam Kuwata in shaping Hahn’s campaign needs their head examined. Why did the Valley secession campaign lose? Because Kam Kuwata ran the “no” campaign.
Remember how everyone kept carping about how laggard the “no” side was? Remember which side ended up winning? I’ve met Mr. Kuwata before and he’s easily one of the most knowledgeable strategists still working campaigns out there, having been a longtime advisor to Sen. Feinstein and others. And he’s a local, living down the street from me here in Venice, so you know he’s a good guy too.
3. No public polling indicates a large shift in public opinion to “kick the bums out. I don’t know that if I took a poll this Christmas asking LA voters if they think LA is the happiest place on earth I’d get a majority saying “Yes, Most Certainly, Sir!.”
I’m also beginning to wonder, in an era of diminished expectations, if people are more resigned to mediocrity than they were in the past. The fact that this year’s City Council elections are pretty dead, with only token challengers to most incumbents, a few with no challengers, and only one real competitive race out here in Venice, suggests either that people think things are fine, or people are accepting the status quo, like it or not.
No poll I’ve seen (and if you have one that you think says different, please, show it to me) indicates a critical mass of personal anger at the Mayor himself for the way things are. That can change, and I’m sure after a barrage of attacks, it could.
Even after such a barrage, the fact is we only have about two months before the first round of voting, and it’s not clear to me that simply reciting the failures of the Hahn administration over and over again is going to be enough to get him out. More importantly, it’s not clear right now who of the contenders is now shaping up as the “one to beat” for Hahn.
Take a trip in the Wayback Machine to the recent presidential debacle. John Kerry and his media advisor, Bob Shrum, actually invented a new way to blow an election, despite all their “advantages” over an incumbent who was facing problems a lot larger than DWP contracting issues.
He still lost.
In other words, just having a lousy incumbent with problems is no longer enough to give them the boot. If people can give a pass to the President on a war and an economy gone wrong, they’re as likely to do so for our Mayor. Hey, it’s not like the Mayor started any wars or anything, right?
We might see the same thing happen here. If after two months we still have nothing but Mayor Hahn and the Four Guys Who Bitch, eventually the press is going to start taking shots at those who sling barbs at the Mayo, taking them them all down a notch.
Now, this assumes the candidates challenging Hahn will fall for this ruse. I surely don’t think that’s the case. But then again, I’ve also seen campaigns with more money and cleverer folks go down in similar situations. It’s not easy terrain to navigate.
Well there you have it. How Mayor Hahn could win. Anything can happen in two months, and we will certainly have some surprises in store for us, which makes covering the election that much more fun
However, at the same time “we” have to be careful we don’t get caught up in the whirlwind of point and counter point so much that we don’t acknowledge just how hard it is to take out even a bad incumbent in the 21st Century.
PS: I want to take a moment to alert all interested parties that Nancy Rommelmann, formerly of Los Angeles, and the ever popular “Leaving LA” blog at journalspace.com, is back online again, now in rainy (but very cool) Portland, OR. I urge you all to check it out. Ms. Rommelmann was one of the first people to encourage me to keep up with this site, and over a year later, I’m still here!
I also want to take a moment to thank LittleCrow who graciously purchased a year’s worth of pro access here at journalspace.com for me for Christmas. Thank you!!!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Just moments ago, the second in a series of debates between the LA Mayoral candidates ended. Several places will be posting transcripts and rebroadcasts if you’re curious to read a blow by blow of the proceedings. Sponsored by the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, the focus was on “the environment.”
Yes, the “issue” of “the environment.”
Whenever I hear this “issue” come up, I’m reminded of something a veteran political consultant in Seattle once told me years ago – that “the environment is a place, not an issue.” It’s something that sounds trite at first, but when you give it some thought, it makes you realize that the paradigm we discuss these “issues” with is often too confining, and too tied to traditional political rhetoric, to allow a real discussion to take place.
It wouldnt’ be a patented column by me about a debate without at least one paragraph bitching about the format of these things so if you want to skip this next paragraph or two, go ahead. I won’t be offended.
For those of you still with me, is it not amazing that you’d have some of the smartest and most committed people to La Causa De Environment in Los Angeles, asking some very big and detailed questions of our contenders limit everyone to the perfunctory one-minute/30-second/15 second responses they imposed on the process?
It seemed at times they wanted to ask so many big questions of the candidates in such a short time, that at times the debate felt a little rushed. I’ve got to wonder, why not just focus on say, 3 or 4 “big” wide ranging issues for a debate that’s focused on one subject, instead of trying to shoehorn every miscellaneous topic under the sun in an hour and a half?
Any time things got interesting, like when Hahn and Hertzberg finally got a chance to bitch at each other over the issue of state funding (or the lack of it) the moderators had to chime in and be “slaves” to the format. How about this? F**k the format and let them go at it for at least 60 seconds. Would not having one more question about subsection D of the water bill make democracy suffer?

End of format rant. Back to the debate!
There were not a lot of surprises (again) during this debate. Parks had his pre-mixed “up yours Mayor Hahn” comments ready to go (you had to love his sneer as he said that the Mayor had “an answer for everything and a solution for nothing.” Great line, Bernie. I bet whoever wrote that for you is really pleased with themself right now. In fact, half the answers given were not really answers to questions ,they were just more spit and piss at the Mayor. Hint to Bernie: we know you despise the Mayor. We got that. But now what?
I was more amused by his ardent insistence he was an environmentalist. I know lots of environmentalists who also find it necessary to pimp for Wal-Mart, a well known responsible steward for the environment. (Have we forgotten his “people will give their left arm for $9/hour” comment a while back?)
As I thought, we got a preview of the Hahn Response to the sniping at him by all of the Sacramento-oriented challengers, taking on the time-old conflict between local government and the Legislature on budget issues to their doorstep. How effective it was today is debatable, but as an argument against the challengers it rings true to voters, regardless of the minute details. Remember how I keep saying that the Legislature isn’t winning any awards for brilliance from the public?
Well the Mayor and his crew know this and areclearly trying to turn everyone’s laundry list of accomplishments as a Legislator against them. Tonight was the first salvo. How effective this is coming from someone with a checkered record of his own is another thing entirely, but never doubt the effectiveness of a million bucks of bile in the mailbox come February.
Former Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg again pushed his “big idea” agenda, with some success. One got the impression he had a lot to say and was somewhat constrained by the micro-soundbite format, since it seemed that he had a master plan for everything. One of Hertzberg’s strengths has been his ability to develop plicy, but it’s a weakness in the micro-bite format. How the campaign will find a way to communicate “big” in a “small” format is a challenge for him and his operation.
State Senator Richard Alarcon, who I’d dismissed as lacking steam earlier, came off a lot more thoughtful in many of his answers, so I’d like to take this moment to retract part of what I’d said before. However, he has an expensive campaign consultant and hasn’t been raising as much money, so hopefully this will be a shot in the arm for him going into the final few weeks of the campaign (hard to believe it’s almost ‘over’ isn’t it?)
Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa also seemed to do much better this time, more clearly articulating a “One L.A.” theme he tried last time (right as he got his ass kicked by Mayor Hahn’s race-baiting campaign that basically labeled him a crack-dealing “Mexican”). More than once he emphasized the need to “come together” on issues that affect specific areas of the city, trying to emphasize that a problem in one part of LA is a problem for all.
It was clear this was the beginning of what we’re going to hear from Mr. Villaraigosa in the future, as part of an attempt to forge a progressive candidacy once again. Perhaps this time he’ll couple it with a couple of right-jabs at anyone who tries to slur him like certain Mayoral candidates did in 2001.
Overall, a nice little bloggable exchange just a few days before Christmas. I urge readers to check out other blogs, such as LA Voice and LA Observed and the various press outlets for other coverage. Until the next one, have a groovy Christmas season and a great New Year!
Side Note: I’m sure there will be folks that will use what I’m about to say to crucify me with the “communist” label, but so what? I found some of the best commentary about the mayoral race came on KPFK from former State Senator Tom Hayden.
Belittle him as a lefty rat all you like, but if you took the time to listen to him you’d realize that he has an interesting take on civic life here in L.A., and frankly cut through the trite BS that the discussion started out with.
I’ve often found that when you get past the cariacture of the “leftist” moniker the press and conservative pundits hit this guy with and listen to him, he’s got a lot to say, and it isn’t all about socialism or something. Years ago I had a chance to meet him via a Democratic Party workshop where they’d expected him to spout off some hippie rhetoric about the 1960s.
Instead he really laid it out why the Democratic Party at the time (1989) was not connecting with middle class voters and laid out a very effective vision for us, as young people, to find a way through the mess we were in. It wasn’t about socialism – it was about empowering people of all classes.
Right on, Tom!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

As predicted, our “debate” was a great recitation of talking points, lots of zingers aimed at the Mayor. It’s hard to say who scored the best zing of the evening – everyone had some clever way to say “Mayor Hahn Sucks!”
Yay. Mayor Hahn sucks. We know that. Thanks Messrs. Parks, Alarcon, Hertzberg and Villaraigosa. But now what?
Still, it was a little entertaining. But what struck me as odd was the choice of moderators for this debate. Now, I have no problem per se with the fine folks who helped moderate this debate, but I had to wonder why, for example, they had an editor from the Los Angeles Daily News asking questions, instead of say, Rick Orlov, the paper’s City Hall reporter, who is considered one of the most knowledgeable journalists covering City Hall these days.
I also wonder why we have to have TV reporters involved in these things – again, there’s nothing wrong with them, but let’s be frank – when has a television reporter in LA’s local television market ever broken a story that didn’t already appear in print somewhere? How many cover the inner workings of City politics on a daily basis?
Exactly.
But back to the participants. I have to say, for a debate that had so much importance placed on it, I didn’t find the exchange to be particularly useful. Bob Hertzberg got some good digs in on the Mayor, to be sure, and his announcement that he’d sign an order banning road construction crews during rush hour got some applause.
(Note to Hertzberg staff: Howard Stern campaigned on this very issue ten years ago in his campaign for Governor. No, I’m not kidding. Look it up. Maybe you can have Bob appear on Stern’s show after the New Year?)
Hertzberg’s site even offered live, realtime spin during the debate. This way people didn’t have to wait until after the debate to get the spin from the campaign. No word on how the other teams were planning their spin, or to whom, if anyone, would be around to listen.
Overall though, with so little time to get much information out there, we were left with the usual cadence these things produce. In fact, using some buzzwords, a few statistics and taking note of the rhythm these guys speak, you could make up your own 1 minute glib responses. Let’s say someone asked you a question like “What will you do about traffic?” you could say:
“I am committed to fixing our traffic mess witha 5-point plan that gets communities involved in the efforts to find ways to get the stakeholders together to move Los Angeles forward, not backward, in this time of crisis. And I really think Mayor Hahn is a stinker.”
Ok, take out that last line – that’s a joke. But you get the idea. Bla bla bla and whatnot, but not a lot of reasons why these guys are running, what makes them think they’re any better than the guy in office, aside from the fact they don’t like Mayor Hahn and think he’s a stinker. For the Mayor, he had to not choke or flinch when enduring one of the zingers aimed his way, and resist the urge to put Bernie Parks in a chokehold when criticized about crime.
(Memo to Parks staffers: No one in their right mind would want Bernie back in as Chief – you may want to go back to defending Wal-Mart instead of attacking the Mayor on this issue.)
I suppose what surprises me the most about our incumbent Mayor, whom we all love to pick on, is his alarming lack of excitement for someone who seems to engage in all sorts of devious political behavior.
Usually people who act like that, for example Ex-Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco, have some sort of forceful, in-your-face personality that fills in the gaps created by ethical questions. Mayor Hahn doesn’t so it is hard to see how he’s going to weather countless hit pieces and television ads paid for by the opposition.
One down, more to go. I’m sure most Angelenos are busily paying attention to each development on the campaign trail for Mayor and City Council. Who cares about the holidays anyway?
UPDATE: Today’s LA Times has a short wrap up which is somewhat interesting. So does the Daily News. LAObserved.com has a wrap up too.
More interesting are the two large, blaring banner ads for Bob Hertzberg, touting his plan to split up the LA Unified School District into “smaller” districts. It almost overwhelms the reader trying to read the story, but at least they’re aggressively putting out their “spin” to the public as fast as they can. Whether it works or not, we won’t know for some time though.
Oddly enough, I a comment on the Hertz-Blog asking a question about this proposed breakup, but it never made it on the site…must have been a techincal glitch of some sort.
For the record, my question was “How does one break up the LAUSD and ensure we don’t end up with a few wealthy districts and many more poor ones that don’t have the money to serve the needs of students?”
Anyone? Anyone?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com