political

Shawna Thomas, who exited CBS News earlier this year, has joined MS NOW as political director.

The cable network formerly known as MSNBC announced Wednesday that Thomas will lead the organization’s political unit and direct coverage of campaigns and elections. She will also appear as an on-air analyst.

Thomas lands at the progressive-leaning MS NOW after five years as executive producer for “CBS Mornings.” She announced her departure from the program last month, just as co-host Gayle King was signed to a new deal.

Thomas is among a number of executives and on-air talent who have left CBS News since the arrival of editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, although she told colleagues her decision was about getting away from the grind of early morning television.

MS NOW is owned by Versant, a company created out of the cable assets spun off by Comcast. The new company chose not to rely on the news-gathering resources of NBC News, which oversaw MSNBC, and is building its own editorial operation.

Last month, MS NOW poached long time NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander, who will have a daily program on MS NOW and handle extended breaking news coverage starting later this year.

Thomas is a veteran of political coverage. She is a former Washington bureau chief for the news division at Vice Media, overseeing politics and policy stories for the HBO series “Vice News Tonight.”

Thomas spent a decade working for NBC News in various production roles, including planning its election coverage. She also had a stint as an executive at Quibi, the short-form streaming video platform.

The real test of Venezuela’s current political moment will not be institutional, but political. It will not lie in the appointment of a new prosecutor, or in any decision taken by a parliament that, by design, reflects the preferences of those in power. It will lie in something far less controllable: the return of María Corina Machado.

For months, there has been talk of normalization, of technocratic adjustment, even of a transition managed from within. It is an appealing idea, but an illusory one. As usual, chavismo does not administer space, it occupies it. The notion that it would suddenly evolve into a system governed by technocratic restraint, even under US pressure, was always more wishful thinking than analysis.

What has changed is not the nature of the system, but our understanding of it. For years, it was assumed that power rested on a rigid internal balance, a kind of tripod between civilian leadership, party machinery, and the military. The uneventful sidelining of Vladimir Padrino López suggests otherwise. Now relegated to an almost theatrical role as Agriculture Minister, he makes appearances at cattle shows in Borsalino hats and Panerai watches. We have long known that chavismo’s superpower is its adaptability. It can reshuffle, absorb shocks, and reallocate power without fracturing, even at its highest levels, and carry on.

That adaptability cuts both ways. It helps explain why Delcy Rodríguez has been able to consolidate authority despite presiding over the country under the tutelage of the “yankee devil”, and despite earlier doubts about her staying power. It also explains why the government has been able to pursue a limited opening without losing control. But it also sets the limits of that opening.

Because the one problem the system has not been able to solve is credibility.

An empty pitch

The effort to attract investment has run into a wall that legal reforms and external signaling cannot easily overcome. Investors are not simply looking for incentives, they are looking for guarantees, that power is legitimate, that rules will be upheld, that today’s opening will not be reversed tomorrow. So far, those guarantees do not exist.

As I have argued before, none of this means that capital will stop flowing into Venezuela altogether. It won’t. There are firms that know how to operate in this environment, firms that have built their business models around political risk rather than in spite of it.

Take Grupo Cisneros, which is moving to secure a $1 billion investment fund aimed at Venezuela’s recovery. Or Chevron, which has doubled down on its presence through a major asset swap with PDVSA, expanding its stake in key projects in the Orinoco Belt.

What is not arriving, at least not yet, is transformational capital, the kind that requires predictability, legal certainty, and a credible political horizon.

These are not naïve entrants. They are actors with long experience navigating the Venezuelan system. Cisneros has remained a player despite fines and suspensions over the years. Chevron, for its part, has effectively become the most important American economic partner of the current government, maintaining operations through multiple political cycles and regulatory frameworks.

But that is precisely the point.

This is not the kind of capital Venezuela needs.

What is arriving, or staying, is adapted capital, capital that knows how to survive volatility, negotiate through informal institutions, and operate without full guarantees. What is not arriving, at least not yet, is transformational capital, the kind that requires predictability, legal certainty, and a credible political horizon.

And that gap cannot be closed through reforms alone. It cannot be legislated into existence, nor negotiated deal by deal. It requires something more fundamental: confidence that power in Venezuela is not entirely discretionary.

The pressure map

The timing of this becomes even more significant in light of Venezuela’s re-engagement with the IMF and the World Bank. After years of isolation, the country is once again being folded back into the international financial system, opening the door to technical assistance, debt restructuring, and eventually, fresh financing. It is the clearest signal yet that normalization, at least at the institutional level, is moving forward.

But this only sharpens the underlying problem.

These institutions can help stabilize accounts, restructure liabilities, and provide liquidity. What they cannot do is manufacture credibility where it does not exist. Their return signals that Venezuela is being treated, once again, as a country with which business can be conducted. It does not guarantee that the rules of that business will hold.

In some ways, Delcy has the easier hand to play. The current arrangement in Venezuela has become useful to Donald Trump in ways that go beyond the country itself. With the Iranian campaign failing to deliver the results he had anticipated, Venezuela has quietly taken on the role of a foreign policy success story, something tangible he can point to, both in terms of energy security and geopolitical leverage.

That utility is not uniform across his coalition. For more isolationist voters in what is often referred to as flyover country, a stable Venezuela that does not require further military involvement, and that contributes to stabilizing US energy prices, is a net positive. 

Detaining Machado, after appearances at CERAWeek and high-level meetings in Europe and Washington, would send a clear and immediate signal to the very actors the government has been trying to court.

Venezuelan crude is already easing pressure on US fuel costs, reinforcing the perception that the current arrangement delivers practical benefits.

But in South Florida, the picture is different. Latino voters, particularly Venezuelans, are already uneasy with the administration’s immigration policies, and are far less inclined to accept stability under a reconfigured chavista leadership as an acceptable endpoint. They are drawn instead to Machado’s message, and increasingly wary of what a prolonged Delcy Rodríguez-led government would mean. For them, the issue is not stability alone, but the absence of a credible electoral horizon.

This creates a tension within Washington’s own political logic. On one hand, there is an incentive to consolidate what appears to be working: restored oil flows, renewed financial channels, and growing international engagement with Caracas. On the other, there remains a constituency that expects something more, a path toward elections, not just normalization.

Machado, in this context, faces a more complex task than it might appear. She is not only trying to pressure the Venezuelan government, she is also trying to persuade a cautious administration that pushing beyond the current equilibrium is worth the risk, that the next step is not to stabilize the system as it is, but to open it further.

And she is doing so with limited institutional backing. Much of the Venezuelan civil society ecosystem aligned with MAGA politics appears more focused on maintaining its own access to the White House than on advancing a coherent strategy for Venezuela itself. That leaves Machado in a familiar position, carrying the burden of political escalation largely on the legs of her own prestige, but now within a much tighter set of constraints.

This is where María Corina Machado reenters the picture, not just as a political actor, but as a structural variable. Her return forces a choice that cannot be deferred. Allow her back into the country, or stop her.

Detaining her, after appearances at CERAWeek and high-level meetings in Europe and Washington, would send a clear and immediate signal to the very actors the government has been trying to court. These are not abstract observers, they are the same executives and investors now being asked to commit capital. Arresting her would not simply be a domestic political decision, it would be read as a statement about the limits of the current opening.

Allowing her to return is not costless either. It risks projecting weakness toward a base that has been conditioned to expect control. It creates space for mobilization, for coordination, for a reactivation of political pressure that the system has worked hard to contain.

But at this stage, that is a more manageable risk.

A constrained confrontation

Chavismo has shown that it can absorb internal contradictions. It can tolerate limited openings while maintaining overall control. What it is less equipped to manage, at least at this point, is a collapse in external credibility at the precise moment it is trying to rebuild it.

This is also not a confrontation between unconstrained actors. Machado is operating within limits of her own. She understands that an uncontrolled escalation could be interpreted in Washington as an attempt to derail a strategy that, for now, tolerates the current arrangement. Her leverage depends not only on mobilization, but on preserving her external legitimacy.

What emerges from this is not a clean confrontation, but a constrained one. Both sides are pushing, but neither is free to push all the way. Machado needs to generate pressure without triggering a rupture that works against her. The government needs to contain that pressure without closing the space in ways that undermine its own economic strategy.

That is what makes her physical presence in the country so consequential. Without it, the reactivation we are beginning to see, student movements regaining traction, party structures reopening, political figures cautiously returning, remains fragmented. With it, that energy has a focal point. 

And that is precisely why her return has become the real test. Not whether the system can produce institutional outcomes aligned with its interests, but whether it can tolerate, and ultimately absorb, the presence of the one actor it does not fully control, without undoing the fragile equilibrium it is trying to build.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.

Re “Asian Population Surges in County,” Feb. 12: Assemblywoman Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) suggests that the reason Asian Americans lack political influence in the U.S. is Asian American cultural characteristics. Although I have the greatest respect for Liu and her work in the Legislature, I disagree. The culprit is not culture but many Asian Americans’ ineligibility to vote as they make their way through the citizenship process, and parties’ and candidates’ failure to mobilize the Asian American community.

Contrary to a public image of political complacency, Asian Americans have a long history of participation in American politics. They have participated through lobbying, litigation, petitioning, protesting, boycotting, civil disobedience and contributing to political campaigns. Liu herself is an example of such involvement. In a multi-city, multiethnic, multilingual survey of Asian Americans, my colleagues and I find that, contrary to assumptions of political apathy, Asian Americans are not culturally disadvantaged when it comes to politics. In fact, they are not at all apathetic. Only 13% express a lack of interest in American politics.

Janelle Wong

Asst. Prof., Political

Science, Program

in American Studies

and Ethnicity, USC

Thrift store millionaire Ray Ellison leaned back in his office chair and laughed.

He knows a liar when he sees one, he said. And he knows a liberal. He doesn’t like either.

“I called him a slimeball, scum-sucking liar,” said Ellison, 65, reciting a description of then-Ventura Mayor Dennis Orrock that he painted on a truck parked near a freeway in 1984.

Ellison took on the mayor’s ally the following year, dubbing Councilwoman Pati Longo “The Phony with The Toni” in full-page newspaper ads that declared her a liar, too.

In 1991, Ellison’s large ads depicted Councilman Donald Villeneuve astride a defecating bull, stating: “Screw the Marketplace.” Last fall, two councilmen and a challenger were featured as smiling fish in ads titled: “A Fish Stinks From The Head. Take A Sniff of These.”

Of the forces that have reshaped Ventura’s political landscape in recent years–pushing campaigns to increasingly personal attacks–none has been consistently harsher than Raymond W. Ellison.

Spending tens of thousands of dollars, including at least $14,000 last fall, Ellison has been described by critics as Ventura’s godfather of mudslinging.

“Based on the ads he ran, I would judge him to be venal and mean, coarse and crass,” said former Councilman Todd Collart, defeated Nov. 5 after he was caricatured as a smelly fish. “He continues to set lower and lower standards to be aimed for by others. And that works against good people seeking elective office.”

Councilman Gary Tuttle–also featured in the “fish ads”–said he considered not running for a second term last year because of Ellison.

“I knew he was going to come after me, and I had to think, ‘Do I want to put my family through this?’ ” he said. “My mom, my wife, my sisters, they got very upset. The Tuttle name has always been a positive in this community.”

Even some candidates backed by Ellison distanced themselves from his methods. Newly elected Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures called a press conference before the election to say she was not associated with Ellison, and asked that he cancel future ads.

Councilman James Monahan, a recipient of Ellison political assistance for 16 years, said recently that he does not condone his friend’s advertisements, because they “can have a negative effect on everyone. You can turn people off.”

But to many of Ellison’s political allies and friends, the Ventura businessman is far more complicated and admirable than his crude public persona might suggest. And his opinions–though presented in a blunt style–air the frustrations of Ventura’s business community, they said.

Supporters say Ellison holds work, family and religion most dear–that he is generous in his donations to church and charity and in his employment of society’s least employable.

A high school dropout turned business whiz, Ellison says he started the nation’s first privately owned thrift store in 1948 with money he earned as a paratrooper in World War II. Now semi-retired, he claims about 1,300 employees in the 28 stores he and his two sons own or operate in seven states.

Officials at organizations for war veterans say Ellison’s thrift stores keep them in business by paying the charities millions of dollars a year for donated goods or by operating charity-owned stores at a healthy profit.

“The United States could use more Ray Ellisons,” said Jim Pechin, business manager for the Vietnam Veterans of America in Washington. “We probably wouldn’t be here today without Ray, because he developed our funding base.”

Locally, Ellison donates to charity golf tournaments and gives time and money to the First Baptist Church of Ventura. In recent days, he helped decorate the church for Christmas dinners–then washed dishes afterward.

“He’s just a very helpful, generous man,” said Nick Bailey, a church associate pastor. “He’s not afraid when he sees needs in the church community and in the ministry here to be a part of the solution.”

*

Ventura attorney William D. Fairfield, who has known Ellison for 20 years, said of his friend:

“I have tremendous respect for this man–for his integrity, for his business acumen, for him as a family man. And I think he’s done more for this community than any single individual by asking public officials to be accountable.”

Banker Bob Alviani, president-elect of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, said the comments of Ellison–whose philosophy is pro-growth, pro-business and anti-government waste–reflect the sentiments of others.

“I don’t think Ray Ellison is alone in his feelings or alone in how he expresses his opinion,” Alviani said. “If he wants to pay the price to say what he’s saying, fine. If you take it to heart, fine. If you choose to ignore it, fine too.

“The wonderful thing about our politics in this country is that a person has a right to say whatever they want,” Alviani said.

Gruff, lean and balding, Ellison is skittish about public attention. He wants to have his say every so often in political advertisements and letters to the editor, and leave it at that.

But the nature of his business–and his family’s pioneer role in it–have prompted a series of television and newspaper reporters to knock at his door.

“I’ve had lots of stories,” Ellison said in a recent interview. “You name it–NBC, CBS, ’60 Minutes,’ ‘The Today Show.’ . . . It’s a big pain in the ass.”

The theme of those stories, including a 1987 investigation by The Times, has been that private thrift store operators such as Ellison use charities’ names to collect tax-deductible donations of clothes and household goods, then sell them for large profits, most of which go into the pockets of the operators and not the programs of charities.

*

The Times’ investigation found that private thrift store operators nationwide typically made $1.50 for each $1 the charities got. Ellison, his extended family and the Ellisons’ former employees dominate the private thrift store industry, The Times found.

But in Ray Ellison’s case, the charities generally have not complained about the revenue they receive from the stores he owns or manages for them. They say their share of profits is higher than industry standards. For instance, charity profits reach about $1.45 million a year–about two-thirds of the total profit–at five stores owned by the Disabled American Veterans organization of Colorado and operated by Ellison.

“Ray runs the Cadillac of the thrift store management,” said Fred Friedrich, president of the DAV’s Colorado thrift store committee. “The guy’s good. He’s got a lot of respect out here.”

Ellison’s Ventura-based M & M Management wrote checks totaling $7 million to veterans’ groups last year, including $4 million in profit from the 28 stores, he said. He won’t say how much his company earned, but he has prospered.

Ellison and his family valued M & M at $5 million in 1985, according to public records. His two sons, Matthew and Mark, and the husbands of his two daughters all work in the family business, Ellison said.

Ellison’s 142-acre ranch just north of Ventura is for sale for $3 million. He has a condominium in Colorado, where he spends summers and holidays. His family owns most of the 28 stores they operate. He’s a real estate developer in Texas, where he recently sold 40 acres to Wal-Mart, and in Washington state, where he’s building a 180-house subdivision and shopping center.

Ellison’s prosperity is surely greater than he could have imagined as a Depression-era son of a Salvation Army officer. As a boy, he said he struggled in school because of frequent family moves along the West Coast, and dropped out in ninth grade.

*

But he began to learn the skills that would make him rich. He remembers watching his parents directing teams of men sorting salvaged goods for the Salvation Army.

Family lore credits his mother, Stella, with coining the term “thrift shop” as the Ellisons helped the Salvation Army transform its bulk salvage operation into a retail one in the 1930s.

Eventually Ellison’s father, Orlo, and four uncles all entered the private thrift store business. But it was young Ray and one uncle who Ellison said started the first private thrift store 46 years ago in Santa Ana with $3,500.

By 1965, Ellison, who lived in Ventura briefly in 1947, had returned to the city with his wife, Sue, a Westmont College graduate, to raise his two sons and two daughters, Ellison said.

Since then, Ellison has left a legacy of hard work and hard feelings.

Even in semi-retirement, the Montana-born Ellison said it is not uncommon for him to arrive at M & M’s national accounting office on Main Street in Ventura by 4 a.m.

“Get your buns out of bed, get your work done before the traffic gets too heavy, then go home and enjoy your family,” Ellison once wrote.

In a recent written statement, Ellison described his children and their spouses, all Ventura residents, as loving and hard working. “Neither they, or my wife and I attend social functions, bridge parties, or have our names associated in any way with playing Santa Claus. Our lives focus around our families, church, friends and business,” he wrote.

Despite such tendencies, Ellison has become well known, first as the Ventura Keys homeowner who led a successful seven-year legal battle against the Ventura Port District to force dredging at the mouth of Ventura Harbor.

The 1968 case cost Ellison $50,000 in fees, but is now cited in law school textbooks as an example of a citizen forcing government to keep its word, he said. More recently, he lost two lawsuits that challenged Ventura County’s General Plan and rezoning policies because of changes he claimed lowered the value of his ranch.

“I have no use for people who lie or abuse their authority to rule over me,” he said in a written explanation of the lawsuits. “I give due respect to every type of authority until that body proves unworthy.”

*

Ellison’s dramatic public entry into Ventura politics came in 1984, when he warned the Ventura City Council not to appoint attorney Dennis Orrock mayor, then attacked Orrock so tenaciously that the new mayor asked the council to appoint an ethics committee to investigate the charges.

On one large sign he placed near a freeway on-ramp, Ellison wrote: “For sale cheap, slightly used mayor. Outstanding qualifications. Unethical. Deceitful. Lies Frequently.”

“I still have the sign,” Ellison said with a laugh.

Ellison claimed Orrock, who years before had represented Ellison and other investors in an ill-fated business deal, knew or should have known that the deal’s promoter had failed elsewhere with similar proposals.

Orrock denied the accusation. And after hours of testimony, all carried on local cable television at Ellison’s expense, the ethics committee cleared Orrock of any wrongdoing.

“That was the first time it got nasty,” remembered John McWherter, a councilman for 18 years ending in 1991. “That was the first time that a personal vendetta had come into City Council politics.”

Orrock said he has not seen or spoken with Ellison since. And despite the “hurtful memories,” he even jokes about the experience.

“In 1984, he elevated me to one of 10 movers and shakers in the area, because I was on the front page of the newspaper for 23 days,” Orrock said. “I don’t know what motivates Mr. Ellison. The guy is kind of an enigma.”

Ellison said his motive was that Orrock was not fit to be mayor. The hearings were a whitewash, Ellison said, but that was OK because Orrock did not seek another council term.

“It was my intention that he never run again for anything,” Ellison said. “I didn’t care about the (lost investment). The money didn’t mean squat. I cared about who would represent the city.”

In 1985, Ellison took on Pati Longo. The councilwoman–whose politics were conservative and pro-business like Orrock’s and Ellison’s–had defended Orrock in his squabble with Ellison.

*

Ellison bought a series of newspaper ads attacking her as a phony who had lied to the grand jury. He cited her admissions that she had been evasive when asked if she’d discussed the closed-door proceedings with others.

“I figured the public had a right to know, because she would have been mayor,” Ellison said.

Longo, who lost her bid for reelection, said she thinks Ellison’s reason for challenging both her and Orrock, and in opposing Villeneuve in 1991 and Collart last year, was to improve Monahan’s chances of being mayor.

“Ray Ellison’s motivation was that Jim Monahan had always been his resident politician,” Longo said. So when Monahan had a chance at the mayoralty, Ellison attacked the favorite, she said.

Villeneuve said he also sees a connection between Ellison’s attacks and Monahan’s political fortunes and agenda.

“His interest in politics is in the form of personal vendetta for somebody he disagrees with in ideology or most often in a very personal sense,” Villeneuve said. “He attempts to parallel his protege, Jim Monahan. I’ve had to sit and listen to Jim Monahan extolling the virtues of Ray Ellison. It’s almost hero worship.”

Both Monahan and Ellison said they are friends who generally see eye-to-eye politically. Ellison will occasionally check with Monahan on issues, they said. Ellison said he doesn’t follow politics closely and will ask Monahan about his reelection plans and the voting records of other council members. But he said he doesn’t ask Monahan’s advice.

“I know that Jim can fill me in if I’m wrong on how somebody has voted,” Ellison said. “I don’t even take the (local) newspaper. I don’t go to council meetings any more. I haven’t for many years. I can get behind on my facts. So I call Jim, or somebody else, but normally Jim.”

Monahan said he has never recommended who Ellison should oppose or support in an election.

“Believe me, he knows how to make up his own mind,” the councilman said. “Ray’s the kind of guy who’s a loner. He does everything on his own.”

*

Monahan said Ellison has helped Ventura politics by bringing information to voters, but he said he didn’t care for the recent fish ads, and thought the Orrock hearings were an unnecessary “dog-and-pony show. That was a sad day for everybody.”

If Ellison opposed Orrock and Longo for perceived ethical shortcomings, he said he opposed Villeneuve two years ago and Collart, Tuttle and environmentalist challenger Steve Bennett this year because he did not agree with their politics.

“They’re discouraging almost carte blanche what needs to be done to rejuvenate the city. What it amounts to is no growth,” he said. “They don’t allow anything that will generate money. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid studies.”

That was as detailed as Ellison got in critiques of his political opponents during two recent interviews. He had trouble remembering what he had written about them in campaign ads. At one point, he read his Villeneuve ad to refresh his memory about the councilman’s principal flaws.

“Let’s see what I had to say here,” he said. “Well, yeah, I did look up his votes. I ought to keep this crap (advertisements). . . . I don’t remember them. I just make them up and forget about them.”

In the Villeneuve ads–as with his fish ads–Ellison stated his pro-business philosophy and lashed his “liberal” opponents. He said his colorful headlines were only a way to grab voters so they will read his full message.

“You have to get people’s attention,” he said.

He does that. For example, in a Villeneuve ad segment titled “To Wee or Not to Wee,” Ellison repeated a second-hand comment Villeneuve allegedly made at a City Hall urinal during a break in a hearing about dredging the Ventura Keys.

Villeneuve and former Mayor Richard Francis, who had battled Monahan before leaving the council in 1991, said they responded with their own negative campaign this fall.

*

Some of their “Anyone but Monahan” ads were more personal and biting than Ellison’s fish ads, especially a radio spot late in the campaign.

“I knew his ads were coming,” said Francis, a Ventura attorney. “I didn’t want to start slinging mud, but if mud is going to get slung and you’re going to get dirty anyway, you may as well get into the fray.”

Monahan doesn’t accept that explanation. “Richard Francis took a personal attack on me that was far worse than Ray’s comments about these other three,” he said.

Nor does Monahan think it’s fair that Ellison is seen as “the special interest in the black hat,” while Patagonia, an environmentalist clothing company that spent about $15,000 in the last campaign, “is seen as the special interest in the white hat.”

Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard “doesn’t give a damn about anybody else’s business but his own,” Monahan said. “Ray Ellison cares about everybody’s business, and he’s willing to stick his neck out for it.”

Patagonia spokesman Paul Tebbel said the big difference between the two is that Patagonia endorses candidates positively, while Ellison attacks them personally.

“He’s strongly within his rights to do that,” Tebbel said, “I just hate to see Ventura politics reduced to who can put out the strongest negative ad.”

Ellison did also buy some endorsement ads last fall, backing Measures, Monahan and Clark Owens.

Whether Ellison has had much impact on election results is an open question. Longo, Villeneuve and Collart, who all lost their races after Ellison’s criticisms, think he has. Tuttle, who placed only fourth last fall, does too.

Others, including McWherter and Monahan, said that Longo, Villeneuve and Collart were vulnerable anyway.

As for himself, Ellison thinks his types of ads work. “I think it’s very effective,” he said.

Ellison said he recognizes the personal pain his ads may cause. Public criticism following news stories about his thrift stores has hurt his family too, he said.

“I feel sorry about that,” he said. “They all have kids. Just like our kids went to school and had to put up with having negative things said about their dad. It’s hard on them. But they become accustomed to it over a period of time. . . . It goes with the territory.”

Yet Ellison felt compelled to write a letter of explanation to Collart shortly after the councilman lost in November.

“I imagine you consider me a callous and insensitive disgrace to society,” Ellison wrote.

He said he respected Collart and considered him truthful. “I wish you well, apologize if you took personal offense to my methods, and thank you for your service,” he wrote.

But within the same letter may be an indication of things to come during the campaign of 1995.

While praising Collart for being true to campaign promises, Ellison chastised those “who forgot . . . what they were elected to do.” He pointedly mentioned Mayor Tom Buford and former Mayor Greg Carson as examples of two who have “breached their stated positions.”

*

Carson and Buford, both originally backed by the business community, have been criticized by some businessmen for votes over the last two years. And Ellison referred to Carson in his fish ads as a weak conservative enticed by liberals with the promise of the mayor’s job.

Nursery owner Carson, who describes himself as a moderate and insists he’s broken no promises, said he first felt Ellison’s sting after council members chose him mayor two years ago.

Ellison immediately telephoned Carson to tell him he had considered him “a nice young man,” but now believed he was a jerk, Carson said. “He was upset because Jim Monahan didn’t become mayor.”

Carson said he considers Ellison’s ads detrimental to Ventura politics, and he said the specter of Ellison would not deter him in 1995.

“Somebody like Ray Ellison doesn’t scare me,” Carson said. “If anything, people like Ray Ellison would be a reason I would run.”