November 9, 2002
THE RIORDAN CANARD:
State Republicans See Light in 2006: Despite losses, slim margins bolster hopes of California GOP. (Shawn Steel, November 8 2002, LA Times)Clearly, the Democratic sweep occurred primarily because of the fund-raising advantage, not the fantasy advanced by liberal pundits that California has morphed into a Democratic bastion. It's also worth noting that, despite being massively outspent, Republicans gained a state Senate seat and two Assembly seats, and they may yet pick up a third.The usual suspects in the media and the Republican Party are resuscitating an equally false notion that Simon lost because he was "too conservative" for California. It's a variation on the canard that the Republican Party must move left to be viable in California -- a nostrum dispelled by looking at the election results.
For example, take the fates of Bruce McPherson and Tom McClintock, the most liberal and most conservative members, respectively, of the GOP ticket. McPherson perfectly fits the theoretical profile of the ideal GOP statewide candidate: pro-choice, strong moderate credentials, fawning press coverage, a comparably well-funded campaign and a compelling personal story. Yet he lost to gaffe-prone Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante by nine points. In stark contrast, the conservative McClintock, the GOP's nominee for controller, received more votes than any other statewide Republican candidate -- and may yet eke out a victory despite having been vastly outspent by the multimillionaire entrepreneur Steve Westly, whose ads attacking McClintock's pro-life stance had little effect.
CA, particularly Latino voters, should be the focus of the Bush '04 campaign and the Party should recruit some decent Senate candidate to take on Barbara Boxer. But it also has to get over the idea that Bill Simon "lost" this race. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2002 8:40 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea that Bill Simon 'lost' this race." Could you elucidate? Thanks.
Posted by: Jed Roberts at November 9, 2002 11:34 AMSimon ran as well as anyone was going to against a guy with $70 million and the will to destroy any opponent.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2002 1:14 PMSimon DID lose the race, him, personally with the most inept, error ridden, excuse for a campaign ever.
Simon on the issues could have won, but his campaign, from a CA perspective revolved around the tarring of a corrupt Davis and the mantra "I'm not Davis".
Bill had some good ideas and his conservative positions on some issues were not electability killers here. But, by and large, we never heard his ideas, or, when we did, they were so lacking in implementation specifics as to be useless to an electorate demanding a reason to vote against Davis.
MikeD:
Right, and that's a function of money.
Riordan had already shown in the primary that he couldn't take Davis. The idea that he would have done better than Simon was always silly.
Prominent Blogosphere lefty Matt Welch says the only Republican he's ever voted for is (John?) Cambell, candidate for Senate against Feinstein in 2000. As I recall, economically he was only a bit to the right of most Democrats. Socially, he was identical to Feinstein, to the point NARAL declined to endorse in the race. He got his clock cleaned worse than Bruce McPherson.
McPherson was the only Republican on my ballot not getting my vote. I reasoned that Lt. Governor is a useless enough office that wasting a vote on a third party didn't matter.
Is the Lieutenant Governor generally a useless office in Cali? Speaking for Texans, we can't afford to blow off that particular race. The Lt Gov and the Attorney General do most of the work around here; the Gov is a figurehead.
Posted by: David Ross at November 10, 2002 12:52 PMHere in NH the governor's appointments are even subject to review by an elected executive council.
Posted by: oj at November 10, 2002 2:42 PM