Author Archives: gdewar

Every campaign cycle has the obligatory “guys who run campaigns” story, that usually is little more than a resume of each “guy” with anecdotes. From reading these kinds of stories, you’d think the reporters just buy a “Mad Libs” pad and insert (name of politico) in (year of story) and (write it like that).
The LA Times did its obligatory piece on Friday the 13th (ha!) While these are of mild interest, nothing in them tells the reader anything they ddid not already know, or hear, the last time these pieces were written.
Each “bigwig” got their name, their age, a paragraph about their past work, a few quippy lines, and that’s about it. Great. I read this and wonder just what it is I, the reader, am supposed to learn from this article? There’s no real questioning about what it is these guys have been doing this cycle, nor is there any real discussion about what their role is, and is not in this campaign cycle.
It serves to reinforce preconceived notions of these guys as something they’re not, and we don’t get any real examination of the role of people who play an important part in how and why we discuss the election in the terms we usually do.
It’d be far more informative if we had a reporter or two (or three) as a guy like Kam Kuwata how he can say some of the things he does with a straight face, and expect people to take him at his word based on what’s been said as Hahn’s spokesman this cycle, for example.
It might be interesting to talk to someone like Ace Smith, and as for a macro-level discussion on just what “opposition research” is and is not in a campaign like Villaraigosa’s. Or even better, ask some of these guys about the campaigns they’ve lose (i.e. Bill Carrick’s loss with Rep. Dick “Screamer” Gephardt” ) and what they’ve learned (if anything) from the experience. Even better, call up Sen. Dianne Feinstein and ask her what she thinks of some of Hahn’s tactics in 2005 – and how that’ll affect her decisions in 2006?
The biggest problem with the political consulting business is that for the most part it is a largely unexamined piece of the advertising business. True, there have been some excellent studies done by James Thurber at American University, and occasionally you read a decent article somewhere. But overall, it is an industry without much serious discussion, which is unfortunate.
Switching gears, there was another story, the obligatory “let’s do a piece about the underlings who work on these things” piece in the main Los Angeles papers. I’m surprised no one noticed how the Los Angeles Times article, which appeared on May 14th, was almost identical to one that the Los Angeles Daily News ran on May 8th.
More importantly, it raises a basic question – are so few people working on the respective campaigns of Jimi Hahn and Tony Villaraigosa that these are the only two underlings that were worth spending any ink on? Might there be some people, perhaps some actually from Los Angeles, the press could have talked to?
Personally, when I read accounts like this of why some young people get into politics, or talk to younger folks, I tend to wince when I hear someone describe themselves as a “political junkie,” and seem to thrive only on the game itself, and for no other reason.
Years ago, I met Tom Hayden at UC Santa Barbara, and he said something to a group of us assembled to learn more about getting involved in the political process. Basically he said (and please bear with the paraphrasing of an event I attended 16 years ago) that young people should pursue whatever it is they believe in or wish to advance, and use the Democratic Party and the political process to achieve their goals as they see fit, and not just become a party apparatchnik for the sake of “politics.”
It was a lesson worth learning, and one, I’m afraid did not reach too many people in the room. However, it’s something these young guns on the Hahn and Villairaigosa campaigns would be wise to heed. The “thrill of the game” ends quickly, and you have to decide on some level what it is you are trying to really accomplish.
It’s easy to become so consumed with polls, swing votes, percentages, and focus groups, forgetting in the process that if you’re not really focused on accomplishing something, you end up looking back at your “career” in politics and find you’ve spent a lot of money, done a lot of neat campaign tricks, but have little to show for it.
To me that’s not very satisfying, but then again, I’ve been in this line of work for a while. I suppose for some others, like the aforementioned Big Wigs of Politics, that’s all that seems to matter. I guess I’ll never know, since all I have to go on are those “Mad Libs” style puff pieces in the Times.
Anyone want to prove me wrong?
PS: Here’s a fun story for some enterprising reporter to consider: Take a look at the many talented people who got some of their early start with Tom Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
A quick review of the folks who got their start with Hayden and Jane Fonda’s organization would be a Who’s Who of some of the smartest people in politics today, many of whom have retained some sense of idealism or political leanings since their days with CED. I could print a partial list here, but I would not want to insult anyone by accidentally leaving them off the list. Still, it would be interesting.
I’ve often felt that the repeated demonization of Hayden by conservatives obscured many of his actual accomplishments in the public eye. Remember, it was Hayden, in retirement, who shut down Gov. Doofinator’s attempts to change pet rescue las by unleashing the power of a network of  pet owners and their army of Pound Puppies to smack down the Doofinator, and send him in full retreat.
I’ll be looking….Reporters, start your engines!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

In about a week, the Los Angeles Mayor’s race will come to an end. Finally.
In the run-up to Election Day voting, there’s been a tremendous amount of political chaff being dropped by all sides. It’s time to cut through the day-to-day noise that’s passing for “political commentary” these days, and recap what we’ve seen for the past four years from our Mayor, and what we can hope to get out of next week’s vote
We have two candidates, who, by their own admission, and the attacks lobbed at them by their opponents, aren’t perfect. Both have qualities that make them at least somewhat qualified for the job, and both have faults, some bigger than others, as well. So how do we look at this race and come to a conclusion?
This election is by necessity a referendum on the tenure of Mayor Jim Hahn. The job of the voters is clear – they need to decide if the work he’s done so far merits him another four years in office, or if someone else needs to be given a chance to do better. Cutting through all the chatter of the PR team, as near as I can tell Incumbent Hahn’s primary focus has been:
1. Raising re-election cash
2. Rewarding donors who gave to him in a close race in 2001
3. (See #1)
4. Rewarding donors who gave to him in a close race in 2005
5. (See #1)
The fact is, we would not have even had a competitive race for Mayor if the myriad of challengers didn’t think that the incumbent hadn’t been doing his job. We’ve read too many stories about people paying for access to the Mayor’s office, problems with “PR” contracts between the City and Fleishman Hillard, and a lot of time and energy spent by the mayor raising money, giving government goodies to his friends, and the like. Any time he’s called on it, he responds with the “best defense is a good offense” rhetoric. Great politics, lousy policy, Jimi.
Now, it might be excusable if a Mayor had a less-than-perfect ethics rating if perhaps he had something to show for his four years in office. But aside from one good hiring decision (Cheif William Bratton), the Mayor has not been a bold leader on any major issues. The “Jimi come lately” to such issues as the County Seal, film production subsidies, and any other “issues” that he’s brought up in the past few weeks
The only time we get to see any big ideas is in the remaining weeks of a runoff campaign, when, in need of something to put on a targeted mail piece, we get some big talk at the end of the race. Perhaps Mayors oughta be limited to 6 months in office so we can get more “big ideas” out of them since they’ll always be in the death throes of a campaign cycle?
There’s no denying that Councilmember Tony Villaraigosa is not a perfect candidate, and has had some missteps of his own. Running for Mayor in the middle of his council term does not help, and he’s had to return some funny money of his own. The difference is that he’s not been afraid to stand up for what he’s done and take responsibility for his actions – and not hide behind PR consultants and taxpayer paid flacks.
More importantly, this is, as I said before, a referendum on The Mayor, first and foremost. And as I said before, it’s time to ask ourselves if we can do better than the guy in the job now. A huge number of people in government & business who have worked with the incumbent have chosen his opponent, flaws and all and the most Hahn’s PR time can do is denigrate these elected officials and trot out the endorsements of crank politicos like Walter “I Dislike Mexicans” Moore.
Which brings me to the thing that has bothered me the most about Jimi Hahn this time around – his campaigns sharp tilt to the right to try and scoop up a few votes and use covert racial appeals to drive up turnout amongst people he perceives Don’t Like Mexicans. It’s cynical, it’s wrong and I’m not the only one to say so.
Garry South, in the LA Daily News takes Mayor Hahn and his crew to task for their newfound interest in Tony Villaraigosa’s skin color, and he’s not too impressed, aiming his comments squarely at Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata, who are running the Mayor’s race.
To me, it just shows me that should Mayor Hahn get re-elected with such a cynical campaign, he will have a much harder time leading the city than he does now. While now he only has the ethical cloud over his head, in a Second Jimi Administration, he’ll have both ethics and ethnic clouds for the rest of his political life. Certainly not something Daddy Ken would endorse. And certainly no way to run a major city.
So, I have this message for my Republican friends who are looking at their final choices and aren’t happy and offer this advice: I know this election sucks for you. I know you look at these guys and are wondering how to vote when they’re both liberal Democrats who are identical on most issues, and whom you disagree with.
It’s no fun when you’re put in this position because you want to vote your conscience but the ballot doesn’t allow it. So who does a good Republican vote for?
My advice: vote for Antonio Villaraigosa, the liberal Latino in the race. If you really support the Republican party, you’ll vote for Tony, even though this seems strange. Why? Because if you give your support to Tony, and he fails, it clears the way for a (real, intelligent, sane) Republican to run four years from now. If he succeeds and LA is a better place in four years, well then you’ll be livining in a better city. Either way, you win.
A vote for the phony “Republicanism” of Jimi Hahn is a vote for more City Hall corruption, more of your tax dollars spent on government goodies for his donors, and a city that will continue to slide downhill. Just because he’s a white guy in a boring suit does not make him anything close to being a Republican. Don’t be fooled. He will not do anything for you once he gets re-elected, and he will not care. That is, unless you give thousands of dollars for the campaign fund.
So, there you have it. It’s not pretty, but for now it’s what we’ve got. No more caterwauling about how negative the camapign was, no more whining about the guy or gal who didn’t make it. It’s time for us to step up and make a decision about the kind of person we want in the Mayor’s office. Go vote on May 17th, and start holding the winner accountable to their promises on May 18th. Good luck.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

If you want to see what a desperate, sad, and hopeless state Mayor Hahn’s campaign is in, you simply need to look at what he’s doing to try and get re-elected. This Son of Kenneth, this Mayor of One of America’s Largest Cities, this Longtime Politician, so stained with inaction, corruption, a lack of charisma, or leadership, has a new campaign theme. What is it?
Simple. It’s called “I may be a crook, but at least I’m white. Tony’s a Mexican. And we gotta stop the Mexicans from taking over.”
Ok, not literally, but that is more or less the campaign theme. Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata are smart and literate enough to put it some other way. I’m sure after Carrick’s presidential candidate, Dick Gephardt, saw his career go down in flames, after a torrent of negative campaigning, he and his cohorts have learned from that little disaster. (What is Dickie G. doing now, anyway?)
Now, I’m not a member of the Legions of P.C. that cry “racism” the way the little boy cried “wolf” (as is too often the case these days), but watching the kind of campaign Hahn is running, and watching how easily people are falling for it, makes you wonder What Would Kenneth Do if he were confronted with someone in public life who can’t say much more than “Vote for Me I’m White.”
Take for example the Mayor’s front-and-center placement of Crank Candidate Walter Moore’s endorsement. Surely your remember this clown – he’s the guy who cared more about the rights of bunnies and birdies instead of property owners. Hahn lost the endorsements of prominent leaders in just about every community there is in Los Angeles – which he derided as bunk.
Yet he was joyous to get Crank Walter Moore’s endorsement to telegraph to Angry White People “Hey, I may be a corrupt, and incompetent steward of your tax dollars, but at least I’m white.”
A quick look at the cranky ex-candidate’s website proves that a) Moore is just another white person afraid of “those people” and b) Hahn is getting his support primarily because of his skin color.
How else to explain Moore’s total abandonment of principle to support his former nemesis? (Memo to Moore: You keep sending me two copies of your stupid emails all the time – and I don’t want any of them. Stop it.)
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that any Good Republican would consider voting for Hahn. I mean, I can understand a Republican not wanting to vote for Tony Villaraigosa because of his openly liberal views, but the sad truth is, on most issues Hahn and Villaraigosa are not that far apart. So why vote for Hahn if he’s really no different on 90% of issues than Tony V?
Even the famous Mayor Sam’s Sister City blog, no home to hippie liberalism, has bitten the bullet and supported Villaraigosa to root out the Hahn mess in City Hall. And yet, there’s Mayor Hahn, belatedly picking up semi-right wing causes in an unabashed effort to get the only block left to him – the white people who Don’t Like Mexicans.
I wish I could hold a seance and call upon the spirit of former Supervisor Kenneth Hahn and ask him what he thinks of the kind of campaign his son is running, stooping to race-baiting as the only way left to hold on to power. I’d ask Supervisor Hahn if this is something he’d do himself, or would have done in the turbulent 60s when race relations weren’t so great. What Woud Kenneth Do?
I’d even ask him if he was proud of the constant ethical problems his son has had, or how after years in office, Hahn the Minor has yet to really do much with his career, or his life, besides Get Re-Elected.
In fact, I wish I could force Jimi Hahn to justify his campaign to his father, face-to-face. I’d love to see Jimi try and obfuscate and use the hair-splitting lie to wriggle his way out of the situation. I’d like to see how far he gets with his weasel-ish performance in front of an actual adult, and leader, especially one like his father was. Especially since he invokes his father’s name when more emails are subpoenaed and more US Attorneys and FBI agents are sent to City Hall.
And it’s not like this is the first time he’s done it anyway. Let’s face facts – in 2001, Jimi Hahn invoked the image of Saint Ken to shore up support in the African American community, while at the same time sending under-the-radar messages to same community warning them of the specter of the Rise of the Browns.
At the same time, such a scorched-earth policy is not entirely unexpected. When a candidate is down and out, they tend to get desperate enough to try something, anything, just to hold on, since they are either facing jail time or an unemployable future.
If I was in charge of Hahn’s re-election effort (and I thank God I’m not!!!) I don’t know what I’d do. But I’d have a hard time fanning the flames of hatred just to bleed a handful of votes out of a pack of cranks I a) dislike intensely and b) would hate to see get something out of a new administration should he win.
Mayor Willie Brown, who mismanaged San Francisco into financial ruin during the boom years, and saddled it with massive, permanent financial, and social problems, took a similar right turn when faced with a possible defeat, begging hard-right Republicans to support his re-election.
He ended up having to hand out taxpayer funded goodies and civil service jobs to people a year before the election hated his guts (partially because of his politics, partially because of his skin color). It was a sick, depraved example of the decline of a so-called leader, and helped cement San Francisco’s slide into mediocrity, one Gavin Newsom is desperately trying to rescue it from.
Whatever. The whole thing is disgusting, and I really hope at this point Villaraigosa wins. I don’t know that he’s the best guy for the job, but for now, I am not as much about who will do the best job, as much as I am about seeing a pack of jerks get denied their post-election goodies. Maybe some other jerks will get them, but at least it ain’t gonna be THOSE jerks.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Loyal readers have probably noticed that I haven’t written a single thing about the Mayor’s race since the election in March. It’s a conscious decision on my part, simply because unlike some other LA-area blogs I could mention, I don’t get a lot of enjoyment out of snark for snark’s sake, nor do I enjoy joining the legions of partisan bloggers who pump out whatever it is they feel is necessary to help Their Guy.
We all know who these people are, so it’s not necessary for me to link to them – I’d rather not give these over-exposed folks more attention than they already get.
In these hyper-abbreviated elections, we usually get to the point where we hear a rehash of the following criticism, which we hear during every election at about this time. They include:
-“The candidates are being all negative. Boo Hoo.”
-“No one is talking about this issue [insert important issue here].”
-“The campaign mailers/TV/websites/whatever are saying things that aren’t 100%” accurate.”
-“Why didn’t [insert name of failed candidate] do better so we could vote for him (be real folks, it’s rarely a “her” when it comes to Southern CA politics).
-“Both candidates suck. I’m not voting. I’m going to show my ‘independence’ by calling for a pox on both houses.” (this is usually followed up with a dose of “See how smart I am and better I am than these two guys?”)
And on and on. You get the idea. If you think about it, isn’t this about where we are during any election cycle? Wasn’t everyone bitching about Kerry and Bush’s campaigns towards the end? They weren’t? Come on.
It’s just more glaring now because the election season for local Los Angeles elections is ridiculously short. Let’s look at the timeline, shall we?
We got hit with a huge election in 2004, followed by: Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s. Sure candidates may have been running during the fall of 2004, but did anyone notice? Did anyone care? No, they didn’t (despite the banner ads).
Not until halfway through January did most campaigns start making a big presence known locally, and by then, well we were just about a month away from the dropping of mail ballots to voters for the March elections. Suddenly, we had a Big Election in front of us, with barely enough time to assimilate the various campaigns and their shenanigans, before the vote hit.
Of course, we had to listen to the usual roster of Self Appointed Prophets of Truth who spent most of their time whining about their lack of coverage, while doing little to get actual votes (and of course they all lost. Big time.) We even had the inevitable “Why isn’t [insert name of total loser here] allowed to attend a debate?” and a lot of soothsayers talking about how “important” debates most people never saw, were.
End of history lesson. Back to the question (and the complaints): who or what is to blame?
In this case, I don’t point fingers at the any one of Usual Suspects of Big Media, Big Biz, Big Labor, Big Politicians or Those Dumb Voters. You can read those analyses elsewhere.
Instead I’d argue something else – the reason the candidates and campaign aren’t living up to some people’s expectations has more to do with the political culture of Southern California and Los Angeles in particular, than anything else. More to the point, the political scene reflects where the voting public actually is than whatever some self-appointed prophet says it is, or thinks it should be.
Take a look at our leading candidates, the ones that got the most votes from a very small pool of voters. One is a longtime politician who has run for years on Daddy’s Name and Record, and has done very little as the incumbent Mayor other than work on that re-election fundraising.
An ethically challenged politico, you’d think he would have been rejected by most politicians and voters – but he wasn’t. When confronted with his record, a surprising number of Actual Voters simply responded by saying “We knew that already. All politicians suck” and voted for him anyway. Even with a message of “I’m my daddy’s kid” and “the other guys suck” – two very thin reasons to vote for anyone – he was able to pull through (but not in first place!)
Our other candidate, the top vote getter, is someone who ran and almost one once already. He projects a nice guy image, looks good on TV, and in general says the things a core group of voters like to hear. But again, this is no revolutionary campaign, nor should we expect any bold changes to the fabric of LA politics should he get elected.
In a city whose political culture is one of disengagement and acceptance of how things are, is it any surprise these two made it so far?
The fact is, who is Mayor of Los Angeles to most people is far less important than who is deciding whether to make a film or tv series in town, or in Canada. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant – it is what people think and believe and influences how they vote – if at all.
Likewise, in a town dominated by people who either feel they must live here, because they wish to pursue a certain line of work, or that they have to live here because they have no way out, they are far more likely to accept the proposition that Los Angeles has to be a polluted, hot, and traffic-ridden city, with expensive rent and mortgages.
One would think that people would not only be upset at the concept of paying almost $20,000 a year in rent to live in places that don’t’ really warrant it, and ask/scream/demonstrate/riot/whatever for someone t o do something about it.
They don’t. They write the checks every month, and keep on truckin’. If they vote, they vote for the least offensive guy, or the one most likely to help their small piece of turf.
They sit in traffic for over an hour each way to work, and they keep on doing it, day after day. They have fundamentally accepted the way things are, far more than people do in other places. You’d be hard pressed to see New Yorkers just sit idly by when things are going to Hell – look at the recent city elections and see the difference.
Does that mean our citizens in Los Angeles are stupid? Absolutely not. It does mean that people here are more focused on Other Things they consider important, to the point that they’ve accepted the world around them for all its faults, and do not’ think too much that it doesn’t have to be this way.
That’s not an indictment of the people of Los Angeles – instead it is a recognition of where they are, as citizens. If you can’t or won’t acknowledge this sense of status quo, you can’t begin to do anything to change it. No one can expect to overcome it in a short campaign season that doesn’t command the attention of most voters. (And oh, yeah, silver tongued eloquence from an unknown isn’t going to cut it, either. Sorry.)
There’s no magic answer to change the status quo – and you’re certainly not going to find it on a blog (not even this one). But if you’re wondering why it is we have who we have as our choices, look again. One is a dull politico more concerned with political fundraising than doing a good job. The other is a more exciting politico who is also quite concerned about his career.
Both will do what it takes to get elected, and one will win. Neither is going to make any big changes. And for most people, that suits them just fine. Maybe things aren’t great, but for most people who are just treading water, they don’t want the current stirred up too much and risk sinking.
If you want to stir up things, be prepared to find a way to reassure these millions of treaders that they’re not going to drown. The people that figure it out will one day run America’s second largest city. Until then, enjoy your choices. And keep sending me copies of their election mail – it’s fun stuff!
UPDATE: Several LA based blogs have linked to this article, including LA Voice, LA Observed, and Dropping the Gloves, to name a few. We even got a mention at KPCC. Thanks, gang!
UPDATE II:Associated Press did this article, also commenting on the lack of interest in the race which had an oddly familiar ring to it.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com