Posted on 03/01/2004 9:54:37 AM PST by xsysmgr
Bill Jones is convinced he can become the next senator from California. "On national security, Barbara Boxer's record is dismal," he says. "She's voted six times not to increase military pay and five times to increase congressional pay."
It sounds like the theme of a political ad — and California voters just may hear it this fall, as Jones tries to knockout Boxer, one of the Senate's most liberal Democrats.
The fact that Jones must get past Tuesday's GOP primary before he has a clear shot at Boxer hasn't stopped him from jabbing at her anyway: His frontrunner's campaign is focused on the general election rather than the handful of intramural opponents seeking the Republican nomination for themselves. The latest Los Angeles Times poll gives Jones a commanding lead over his competition, with 44 percent of likely GOP primary voters supporting him. Former state assemblyman Howard Kaloogian is in a distant second place, with 12 percent, followed by former Los Altos Hills mayor Toni Casey at 10 percent and former U.S. treasurer Rosario Marin at 8 percent. Jones holds a slightly bigger lead among self-described conservatives, with 48 percent favoring him and only 14 percent preferring Kaloogian, who is trying to outflank Jones on the right.
Jones may be the favorite on Tuesday, but he'll be a heavy underdog against Boxer. The Los Angeles Times also polled registered voters on a prospective Boxer-Jones bout: 53 percent said they were at least leaning toward Boxer, versus 37 percent for Jones.
Yet the former secretary of state is upbeat. His third-place finish in the 2002 GOP primary for governor was a disappointment, but he has a track record of winning in tough circumstances. As a member of the California state legislature, he came from a district where most voters weren't Republicans. "I've proven that I can attract independents and conservative Democrats," he says. Six years ago, he was one of just two Republicans to win statewide office — at a time when the California GOP was said to be collapsing.
The biggest problem for Jones between now and Tuesday — and perhaps beyond — may be his vote in the early 1990s supporting Gov. Pete Wilson's tax increase. "It wouldn't have been my package if I had been governor at the time," says Jones. "But we didn't have very many choices. We cut as much of the budget as we could — the votes for deeper cuts simply weren't there." He also notes that as the Republican leader in the state assembly, he felt an obligation to support a Republican governor faced with a set of bad options. Several weeks ago, Jones signed Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge.
On free trade, Jones is cautious. "I supported NAFTA, but we have to follow through on side agreements involving labor and the environment," he says. "We haven't done this." He won't commit himself to CAFTA — the Central American Free Trade Agreement, recently concluded by the Bush administration's negotiators. "I'll have to take a look at it," he says. "I'm certainly not averse to trade agreements." By contrast, Kaloogian is a strong critic of NAFTA.
Immigration is a major issue in many GOP primaries this spring, as conservative candidates rush to denounce the recent Bush guest-worker proposal. Jones isn't necessarily an opponent, though he's hardly enthusiastic. His statements seem carefully calibrated to give him flexibility later on. "I don't support an amnesty," he says, echoing Bush's own words. He doesn't necessarily oppose a Bush-style reform, either. "Any solution to the problem of illegal immigration must be a California-centric solution," he says. The federal government, he insists, should reimburse California for the costs of illegal immigration.
Finally, Jones might become a reluctant supporter of a gay-marriage amendment to the Constitution. "I'm opposed to gay marriage," he says. "They're flouting the law in San Francisco right now. If the Supreme Court does not move on this quickly, then I'll certainly entertain the idea of a constitutional amendment."
A more important question for him, however, is whether California voters will entertain the idea of Senator Jones. If all goes according to his plan on Tuesday, he'll have about eight months to make his case — and beat Boxer in a close decision.
Right on.
When a trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who dresses for battle?
Well said.
The Republican Party of California is not competitive at the federal level. Queen Diane and Princess Boxer will be CA's Senators until THEY decide to leave. California has made a turn to the Left, and the people like it, warts and all.
So will I. We can fall on our swords together.
Not if he loses the primary tomorrow to Kaloogian...
President Bush's support for the FMA pretty much terminated the weaks chances of any GOP nominee, though. That fired up the Democratic base here.
I suspect the same is true nationally. Bush 43 is playing the same script of most any incumbent president running for re-election - to hell with my party - ME FIRST! He appears to be going for a partial replay of 2000's state by state wins, with reapportionment giving him a minimum seven more electoral votes.
I was hoping for a GOP pickup of 4-5 Senate seats before last week. It now looks more like 2-3. Bush's support for the FMA encourages ticket-splitting and divided government.
Worse, his letting Congress spend wildly on discretionary domestic stuff, mostly boondoggles, pretty much puts a short-term limit on the beneficial effects of his 2001 tax cut. This helps his immediate re-election, but there will be a long-term price for it.
What most concerns me about Bush's Can't Say No attitude towards domestic spending is that it might reverse the pending economic recovery four years from now. It will be a real problem for the 2008 GOP nominee to face a recession that year.
With Hillary as the Democratic nominee.
I don't know about that.
I suspect the same is true nationally.
Well that's definitely false. The FMA is a huge winner for the Republican base AND swing voters especially conservative Democrats. It'll help us pick up seats in the senate, no question.
I share your concerns, but drag Osama's corpse down Sunset Boulevard in late October and everything changes.
And don't pretend there isn't a major generational issue here which will cost the GOP big-time in future elections. I know all about such things as my father, then an about to retire Democratic pol, told me exactly how he and Leon Panetta were using Pete Wilson's idiot 1994 anti-immigrant initiatives to bury the GOP here in California. Things worked out exactly as he hoped they would. He gloated at me about it at the time and still does.
Bush did this holding his nose too - he was trying to limit GOP base losses caused by his Can't Say No To Spending, Medicare drug and immigration policies. He doesn't get anything new, and only tied off a bleeding artery.
Here's an informative post from Daniel Drezner's blog on the subject:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001121.html
"Yes, Bush believes that an amendment is needed to preserve marriage as being between a man and a woman. From what I have heard from friends who are more than a little bit involved in the BC04 operations, they are not really sure how this is going to cut. The most obvious gains would be in the "Red" states that Bush is pretty much a lock to carry. They say that they do not know how this is going to cut in close Red states like, say New Hampshire, where a lot of Bush voters in 2000 define themselves more as libertarians than conservatives or loyal Republicans, nor do they think this is going to help them at all in some of the close "Blue" states like Minnesota, which they felt was trending Republican and where they thank there is a fairly significant moderate swing vote. I am told that as you move up the chain to the higher level gurus, no one thinks this is going to win the election for Bush, most think it will wash out as neutral, and a few think they could lose the election over it if the economy does not significantly improve. I am also told that, with the Massachusetts ruling, the pressure from the base was becoming inexorable, and that they felt that not endorsing the amendment was definitely going to hurt them. Thus, they made a tough call and came down on the side that you would expect, the one less likely to hurt them. In other words, this is about typical for every campaign, which has to make at least one high stakes decision that could cut either way, but which they can't kick down the road. Dan Drezner may have some sources that he could cross check this with; what I have said comes from three different people, some of whom differ a little bit on their analysis, but none of whom would strongly disagree that what I have written is a fair summary.
posted by: Daniel L. Merriman on 02.24.04 at 10:08 PM [permalink]"
You are correct. I'll be voting for Kaloogian... and NO on Prop 55-58.
Ideals, principles, and the platform have been thrown out the door and replaced by a "win at all cost" philosophy.
Governor Schwarzenegger could not have won a statewide GOP primary because he's a RINO. Face it, LOSER is a synonym for those who apply the term RINO to other Republicans.
I used to be a Democrat and changed parties because I just couldn't stand their anti-Americanism anymore. One of the things I carried with me from my Democratic past is a preference for winning as opposed to losing.
Most California Republican primary voters would rather have all or almost all of their statewide candidates lose, as in 1998 and 2002, than admit there is a problem with their principles.
I say it is a disgrace that Barbara Boxer is still in the U.S. Senate, and I'd happily beat her with a "yellow dog" (reference to yellow dog Democrats) if that is what it takes to win.
Winning is better than losing in campaign politics. Much better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.