Prop 93: The battle of the Steves

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Steve Westly and Steve Poizner have a remarkably similar background. Both made their fortunes during the DotCom heyday and then used those fortunes to get into politics. Both have tended towards moderate for their respective parties. Well, the two are now squaring off over Prop 93. It's actually quite entertaining, even if I weren't working for Yes on 93 (Disclosure).

In the Merc today, the stage was set for what could reasonably be a potential matchup for the governorship:

The battle over Proposition 93, the proposal to loosen term limits, has suddenly become a potential preview of a matchup of two Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneurs with gubernatorial aspirations. Steve Westly, the former state controller who lost in last year's Democratic primary for governor, said Monday that he will throw his name and money behind Prop. 93, six weeks after Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner took over the No on 93 campaign and contributed $1.5 million of his own money to defeat the proposition.

Westly played down any further political ambitions -- or a potential clash of Silicon Valley titans. "I'll make a decision next year about whether 2010 is the right time for me, and my family, to run again," said Westly, responding to an interview request by e-mail. "This initiative isn't about Steve Poizner or myself, it's about how we best prepare California to be successful in the future."(CoCo Times 12.18.07)

Now, it's reasonably clear to anybody who's ever observed Poizner that he's not a bottom of the ticket kind of guy. He's looking to be governor, and I think it's reasonable to say the same for Westly. What isn't so clear is whether Westly would be interested in running again. Either way, this little back and forth in LATimes.com's Dustup feature is quite entertaining. Yesterday the two Steves discussed whether Prop 93 would make a "good law" better. Poizner says that 93 would not be in the spirit of Prop 140 from way back when, while Westly disagrees. They also seem to be arguing about the meaning of some nonpartisan report.  (By the by, this site is officially nonpartisan. So, I expect random politicians to quote Robert or Dave and argue over what they are saying. Oh, and Dan Walters. But I suppose we are generally pretty clear, huh? Maybe we should focus on ambiguity, and we'll appear in lots more newspapers and TV reports.)

They just posted today's "dustup" between the two, with the question being "Have they broken career politicians' power monopoly in Sacramento or just sped up the game of political musical chairs?" My comment, which I posted quite a while ago, but is still apparently waiting in the moderation queue, discusses the parable of Richard Alarcon.  He went from Senator to Assemblyman to City Councilman in about 4 months. Oh, and I suppose I should also mention that he also ran for Mayor against Villaraigosa and Hahn in 2005. If the legislators constantly have their eyes on the next job, how are they learning and growing in the one they've got?