Why I voted for Steve Westly Today

I have never been as undecided in a primary election before as I was filling out the ovals today to elect who would be the Democrat to challenge Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor of California.

I stood for a full 10 minutes in the booth reviewing what I know about the candidates and the race. Ultimately--my headline spoils the surprise--I voted for Steve Westly.

In the final analysis, I voted for Westly because I believe he is the best candidate to beat Arnold in the general election and because the race is so close between him and Angelides that I believe my vote matters. The pivotal issue for me is the role of special interest money in the race. I believe that the unheard of $7 million independent expenditure on advertisements in favor of Phil Angelides by a father-daughter team of Sacramento developers renders it impossible for Angelides and the Democrats to run against Arnold on the issue of his being beholden to special interests.

Seven Million Dollars?!@#$ This is largest single contribution to any race other than self-financed millionaires.

Before they put this money in, Angelides was badly behind Westly, not getting his message out. Now, especially with having a ground operation (Westly is said to have none--Angelides has all the big union endorsements), Angelides is positioned to win the primary. If he does, he will quite literally owe his election to the Tsakapoulouses (or howsomever you spell it).

Morever the most recent polls show Westly beating Schwarzenegger with Angelides losing badly-- and I really don't want the Democrats to lose. It's imperative to defeat this Governor.

All other things being equal, I'd be inclined to support Angelides over Westly. I think he's more of a real progressive. He's endorsed by all the groups I care about. And I think he'd be a good governor.

But neither are the differences between these two candidates especially stark. Both are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (in the sense of being anti deficit spending). Both support public financing of elections. Both have strong environmental records (there seems to be a real split among environmentalists I know as to whom they prefer, but it is clearly a subject about which reasonable minds can differ).

There are two important policy differences that I am aware of:

1) Phil has openly advocated an income tax increase, while Westly has not.
2) Westly has supported the San Francisco District Attorney's forward thinking reforms for prisons and penalties for drug offenders, while Phil as not.

As to the first difference, while I agree strongly with Angelides that an increase in the income tax is the wiser public policy for creating a fiscally sound government, I do worry that it is politically suicidal of him to espouse it and am concerned that that alone could tank the general election for him.

As to the second, I think the lack of political courage to reform and cut back the prison industry in this state is of vital importance.

So, at the end of the day, I voted for Westly. Now let me have it--why was I wrong?