Posted on 02/20/2006 3:21:04 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Typically in California, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor don't campaign as running mates -- but you would never guess it by watching Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock lately.
The 2006 campaign is still young, but Schwarzenegger, the incumbent governor seeking an uncertain re-election, and McClintock, a state senator from Ventura County running for lieutenant governor, look very much like a tag team.
Personal friendship -- and political necessity -- have forged an alliance between the two that mirrors a presidential-vice presidential slate, with each shoring up the other's weaknesses.
Schwarzenegger helps boost McClintock's visibility and fund-raising ability. McClintock, in turn, has recently rushed in to aid Schwarzenegger by tamping down trouble from his right flank.
"There is a mutual-needs society going on here," said veteran Democratic strategist Kam Kuwata. "One guy has the bottle of milk. The other guy has the glass. You need both to drink the milk."
It wasn't always this way.
Just three years ago, the pair competed to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the recall election.
McClintock was the sometimes bristly, uncompromising conservative who won over many Californians with his principles, even though his social views were out of sync with many voters. Schwarzenegger was the charismatic moderate, who took the state by storm with his unique brand of star power, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
Schwarzenegger was elected with more than 48 percent of the vote, while McClintock received almost 14 percent.
A few months later, McClintock wrote the ballot arguments against the Schwarzenegger-sponsored Propositions 57 and 58, a bond-and-balanced-budget package. He thought the measures would allow lawmakers to postpone tough budget choices.
But time and perhaps political expediency appear to have healed all wounds.
The men are said to have developed a warm friendship. And they appear tighter than ever as the California Republican Party convention in San Jose approaches this weekend.
"Together, they are greater than the sum of their individual political parts," said Republican political consultant Dan Schnur. "Schwarzenegger may not have picked a running mate like he would have in a presidential campaign, but McClintock provides him the same balance that a running mate would."
But will a ticket approach fly in a state where voters view the offices as so separate that they frequently elect governors and lieutenant governors from opposing parties in the same election? It's hard to say. Past legislative efforts to have the two statewide officers run as a slate have gone nowhere.
Same-party candidates for governor and lieutenant governor here mainly do their own thing. They may team up at conventions and scattered events, but their campaigns are distinct.
So far, this year is an aberration.
The two men have separate campaign arms, but "they are running as a de facto ticket," said GOP consultant Kevin Spillane.
The coming months will tell whether the alliance is short term or more lasting.
"Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. McClintock are good friends," said Steve Schmidt, the campaign manager for the governor's re-election effort. "Sen. McClintock will be the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. They're going to work together during the campaign. No two running mates ever agree on every issue, but Gov. Schwarzenegger is pleased to have Tom McClintock beside him."
McClintock, whose profile was raised in the 2003 recall, is usually a weak fund-raiser who has come oh-so-close to winning the state controller's office -- only to fail twice. This year could be his last real shot at winning a statewide post.
Schwarzenegger, a prodigious fund-raiser, helped McClintock amass about $500,000 for his 2004 Senate race. This year, McClintock has been invited to meet-and-greets with well-heeled Schwarzenegger donors.
The governor could also help generate publicity for McClintock and earn him crossover appeal with independents and Democrats. If the governor solidly wins re-election, McClintock and other Republican candidates for statewide office could ride his coattails.
"If it's a bad year for Schwarzenegger, it's kind of hard to see how McClintock would win anyway," said Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney, a former Republican policy analyst. "If it's a good year for Schwarzenegger, the alliance could work to McClintock's benefit."
After last year's disastrous special election, which alienated many Democrats, independents and dispirited conservatives, Schwarzenegger could use a boost too.
The governor recently faced an uprising from some members of his party's right wing -- an attempt to have the GOP revoke its endorsement of Schwarzenegger unless he dumped his new Democratic chief of staff. The insurgency threatened to overshadow the coming convention.
McClintock, revered as an icon in some California conservative circles, had the governor's back.
The senator sent a missive in support of Schwarzenegger to 1,400 convention delegates and signed on to another, similar letter from GOP candidates for statewide office. He recently arranged a conference call with the influential California Republican Assembly, whose members were agitating to yank the governor's endorsement. McClintock also attended a closed-door meeting last week at the Sacramento Hyatt among Schwarzenegger, his campaign team and the county GOP leaders.
The long-shot push to rescind the endorsement died down, and McClintock was a "linchpin" in restoring the peace, one of the governor's aides said.
McClintock's reputation for being unwavering in his beliefs could also rub off on Schwarzenegger, who has been criticized for zigging and zagging left and right.
The strategy, though, carries some risk. If the public associates them as a team, either man could suffer if the other bungles.
McClintock -- both revered and scorned for his loner nature -- could lose credibility if he's seen as compromising his principles to elevate Schwarzenegger.
Thus far, he's avoided that trap. Earlier this year, McClintock made their differences clear -- the governor's budget proposal, he said, "digs a bigger hole" in the state's finances.
Still, "I will do everything I can to see that this governor is re-elected," McClintock said recently. "And I'll do everything I can to offer alternatives when I disagree with specific proposals."
There's also a chance that opponents could try to use some of McClintock's views -- opposition to abortion, for example -- to tar Schwarzenegger as he tries to win over moderates and independents. But pro-choice Californians could always split the ticket.
Most analysts think the risks are few, and the dividends could be ample.
"We've always said we were the Big Tent party, and that's true," said veteran Republican strategist Ken Khachigian, who was President Reagan's chief speechwriter. Plus, "the closer you get to elections, the more pragmatic people get."
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I agree, and the two liberals running against Arnold is totally unacceptable.
Good post. Ignore the 'shoot the messenger' types around here.
Their actions don't reflect principle, they reflect pride -- the thing that goeth before a fall, remember?
Here's my fantasy: Schwarzenegger and McClintock win and then Arnold screws the Democrats by either resigning or going on permanent vacation out-of-state. McClintock becomes governor and, using the line-item veto, institutes a program of fiscal discipline the likes of which California hasn't seen in years. It won't happen, but it's fun to contemplate.
You two are correct, ignore the wailings of the so-called "Conservatives".
done!
Thank you!
I'm all for that.
Arnold can lose without McClintock but he can't win without him. Whatever you think of their personal relationship, if the Governor can't bring conservatives back by November, none of this matters.
Ahhh... but Arnold can win without him if he ran on his real agenda. The democrats got him elected in the recall election, and they can do it again. Right now, the democrats don't seem to like Westly and Angelides much. Arnold has an environmental platform that is comparable to the left, has proposed even more spending than the left, and is helping advance Agenda21 with the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, tollroads, etc. He has signed almost every piece of GLBT legislation presented, except the single gay marriage bill. November is still a long ways off--time will tell.
I like your fantasy. It's always fun to dream! :-)
What is telling is absense of "anger" toward those taking real actions to advance liberalism--more spending; more borrowing; more gun bans; more pro-homosexual legislation; 25 million acre land grabs; more environmental regulation; minimum wage hikes; government subsidies for stem-cell research, solar roofs, hydrogen highways; government babysitting; more leftist judges; a Sacramento executive suite packed with lifelong democrat activists.
The "principles" that you mock happen to be those outlined in the platform of the Republican party. I would certainly be tolerant, and supportive, of a Governor who supported just 75% of that platform. Unfortunately, the record shows that we are getting much, much, less.
Again, McClintock and I understand that this state did not become the Liberal nightmare it is overnight, and it won't heal overnight -- it will take time and compromise. McClintock, not Arnold, is the true action hero.
Thanks!
As predicted, some try to blame a flawed election and campaign on conservatives.
http://www.flashreport.org/special-reports0b.php?faID=2005110202424596
If they lose all four, we should have a contest on how they'll explain their polling. Maybe it will be the old standby -- opinion shifted at the end, the last few days, and momentum was suddenly against them. More likely, they'll blame Republican voters for not coming out, as if this would be some total surprise. But major donors like to believe these arcane polling explanations, because it's easier to do so than admit they've been had. I mean, when is the last time a rich guy at the Lincoln Club admitted he was gullible and taken in by a poll that cooked the numbers?
http://www.flashreport.org/special-reports0b.php?faID=2005110202424596
One wonders why they did not have thorough opinion research to adequately measure the futility of a campaign. Either there was no research, or they asked the wrong questions, or they ignored the data. Perhaps they were just so determined to have a special election. That’s what I think.
(snip)
The pollster keeps reporting that the consultant’s ads are working, so they buy more ads. It’s like the old brokerage churning – when brokers bought and sold a bunch of stocks. The commissions were high, and they did well even if you didn’t. So, it seems are that a survey concludes the campaign is not working. Better, when it’s over and the client loses, to blame it on voter turnout.
I can't imagine how they could have proceeded at all with a special election, or with this type of campaign, if they had serious quantitative and qualitative research. But, then again, I can imagine how they could have done the things they did last year. But maybe it's not the polling. I mean, why take this smart, wonderful communicator - -a macho guy, and make him into a milktoast, going to staged, contrived events in which he says next to nothing, and where each TV news report ridicules him and the event, and the "pres-elected" audience. I guess no one had the balls to sit him down, have him study the issues, and have him confront the electorate, Reagan-style, and show what he's made of.
The only poll that's important is the one at the ballot box. You can throw polls around, analyze motives ad nauseum, and talk cynically about how people got "took" all you want. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of conservatives didn't bother to vote because of disillusionment with a governor who wasn't exactly an unknown quantity! So the chance we had to put that hairline crack in a Liberal stranglehold was wasted. You bet I blame a flawed election and campaign partly on conservatives, and an "expert" who says the LA Times isn't biased in its polling isn't going to change that view.
Which is not fact at all, as there are absolutely ZERO statistics published by the Secretary of State showing voter participation by Party, let alone by 'Conservative.'
You bet I blame a flawed election and campaign partly on conservatives...
You blame the flawed election and campaign on conservatives? What conservatives? The campaign wasn't run by conservatives. Some will go to any lengths to blame everything on conservatives--Amazing!
...an "expert" who says the LA Times isn't biased in its polling isn't going to change that view.
The LA Times poll he was citing was a whole lot more accurate than the SurveyUSA garbage that folks were trying to push on this forum. Remember these threads? Some here still want to drink this kool-aid.
2005 California Special Election (Arnold Winning On Initiatives! A Blueprint For The GOP In 06 & 08?With the reference to the "expert" (you put in quotes), Arnold Steinberg, I assume you're trying to paint him as some sort of hack? And what will you call the Weekly Standard? A leftist rag?
RealClear Politics ^ | October 15-17, 2005 | Staff
Posted on 10/21/2005 8:21:40 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalistDon't believe the lies: Schwarzenegger's Propositions all winning
SurveyUSA ^ | 10/17/05 | Dangus
Posted on 10/17/2005 4:27:22 PM PDT by dangus
Arnold Steinberg, probably California's smartest political strategist, predicted the disaster, arguing the mistake was in the bundling of all those propositions in a special election (see, in these pages, Steinberg's "Losing Propositions," Nov. 21). Any of them individually, provided it was included on a regularly scheduled ballot, might well have passed. Together, they allowed the opposition to pool their considerable resources.
Proposition 74: Delays probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to five years, making it easier to terminate teachers with unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Proposition 75: Prohibits unions from spending money on political campaigns without the consent of their members.
Proposition 76: Constrains spending growth to revenue growth.
Proposition 77: Removes authority for designing congressional boundaries from state legislators. Instead, voters must approve plans drawn up by a panel of retired judges.
Which of these initiatives did you not support? And which ones do you think would have been proposed by Cruz Bustamonte if he were governor instead of Arnold?
Conservatives who didn't show up to vote for these measures screwed the pooch. They lost a chance that RINO Arnold presented to start to set things right. All the red herrings about polls and excuses about timing don't change that. I remember at the time letters from the editor and posts on Free Republic from so-called "principled" conservatives who basically took the line that, "Arnold is a RINO, so what's the use. I'm staying home." The measures lost, some by close measures, if I remember correctly. What a way to help California. Some will go to great lengths to blame everything on RINOs. Amazing!
Did you even read my posts? This excuse of "conservatives didn't show up" is pure myth as there are ZERO facts to support your contention. Red herrings? I made no comments about polls or excuses.
I remember at the time letters from the editor and posts on Free Republic from so-called "principled" conservatives who basically took the line that, "Arnold is a RINO, so what's the use. I'm staying home."
Prove it. Show me links of more than one poster that ever said that.
The measures lost, some by close measures, if I remember correctly. What a way to help California.
Yes. The most conservative measures (Prop 73 and 75) lost by the smallest amounts, indicating that conservatives did show up. That is a fact that works to dispute your myth.
Proposition Yes Vote Yes % No Vote No % ----------------------- --------- ----- --------- ---- 73 Minor's Pregnancy 3,676,592 47.2 4,109,430 52.8 74 Teacher Tenure 3,516,071 44.8 4,329,025 55.2 75 Public Union Dues 3,644,006 46.5 4,190,412 53.5 76 Spending/Funding 2,948,243 37.6 4,877,735 62.4 77 Redistricting 3,130,541 40.2 4,641,633 59.8 78 Rx Drug Discounts 3,199,193 41.5 4,508,873 58.5 79 Rx Drug Rebates 3,003,912 39.3 4,625,132 60.7 80 Electric Regulation 2,580,536 34.4 4,920,679 65.6
Some will go to great lengths to blame everything on RINOs. Amazing!
Excuse me? I am not the one posting hatefilled vitriol on this thread, nor did I call anyone a "RINO". I do question the true motives of those who endorse and support a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic.
Yawn, I was just watching curling,
I see you have a new kick toy. ;-)
Carry on. :)
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.