Posted on 03/09/2002 10:39:09 AM PST by Incorrigible
In California, a Defeat for White House Control Freaks
The White House invested 11 months and huge amounts of political capital in Richard Riordan's bid to be governor of California. President Bush personally wooed the former Los Angeles Mayor, who supports abortion rights and gun control. And Vice-President Dick Cheney followed with a $300,000 fund-raiser. Why back a candidate to Bush's left? White House political guru Karl Rove reasoned that Riordan, who received strong Democratic support in his two mayoral bids, could win vital crossover votes in November against Democratic incumbent Gray Davis.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Riordan's coronation as the Republican standard-bearer: On Mar. 5, GOP primary voters instead nominated conservative Bill Simon, son of former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon. "The world is not a chessboard where the White House can move pieces," says Mike Franc of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Riordan's defeat highlights the risks of the Administration's unprecedented top-down campaign to recruit and raise money for Republicans who appeal to swing voters in key states. With control of Congress and 36 governorships up for grabs, the goal is to clear a path in Congress next year for the Bush agenda and ensure that GOP governors--and their get-out-the-vote machines--are in power when the Presidential election rolls around in 2004. Rove and his lieutenants--White House Political Director Kenneth B. Mehlman and Republican National Committee Vice-Chairman Jack Oliver--are being coldly pragmatic. In some states, they believe, the odds favor centrists over true-blue conservatives. "One race could make the difference between whether we're going to have a Congress that works with Bush or one that results in gridlock," says Representative Greg Ganske (R-Iowa), who wants to unseat liberal Democratic Senator Tom Harkin. The White House is helping Ganske take on a more doctrinaire Republican in the primary.
Conservatives say Bush is too willing to swap principle for political expediency. And they worry that his compassionate conservative clones may lose in November if the party's base stays home. John J. Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, agrees there's risk. "But ultimately it's a smart strategy," he says. "As Reagan learned in the second term, you can't ignore the makeup of Congress."
Despite Riordan's loss, Bush is sticking to his game plan. In the race to succeed right-wing icon Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Bush and Rove cleared the field so that moderate conservative Elizabeth H. Dole could avoid a bloody primary against a hard-liner. In Minnesota, Cheney personally urged state House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty to abandon his Senate bid so that former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman could get an early start against Democratic liberal Paul Wellstone.
The next test of the Bush plan will be late this spring in Ohio, where the White House has anointed former Dayton Mayor Mike Turner in a special election to replace Democratic Representative Tony Hall, who has accepted a U.N. job. Turner is expected to face a three-way contest against more conservative foes.
Sure, Bush's strategy doesn't sit well with the Right. "There were certainly some hurt feelings," acknowledges Minnesota House Speaker Steve Sviggum, a Pawlenty ally. But with a 97% approval rating among conservatives, Bush is betting he can retain their loyalty while putting centrists on the ballot who can get elected--and owe him big-time.
By Lorraine Woellert
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Related thread:
The fact that this will be branded as "unrealistic" and "extreme" by many, including here on this thread, just shows how far so many "conservatives" are from being really pro-life.
Simply put, Bush was not going to support Jones (who had supported McCain in the primaries). And Simon was a relatively unknown figure. Therefore, Riordan, looked good. Simon fooled everyone. He is one smart campaigner, and he has figured out that Californians will listen to a straight talker who knows his bread and butter issues.
It is so amusing. Simon has every one in his campaign contacting eveyone from Rush to Jerry Falwell to try to get them to help poor Mr. Simon take on Davis. It is amusing to hear people like Rush give him lip service. Rush put one of Simons groopies on to say, "Simon is going to win this fall." Rush replied, "I am not going to tell you that you are wrong." I could not believe that Rush said that. When someone tells you they are not going to tell you that you are wrong, they believe you are wrong. They just don't want to hurt your feelings. When I was learning to do talk shows I was taught to respond to such nonsense by saying,"You may very well be right" You were to leave unsaid, "You may very well be wrong." When a talk show host says "I'm not going to say you are wrong" he is conveying the message that while not saying it, he is certainly thinking it. Rush makes 200+ mill a year. He can aford to put down callers. But it likely went over most listeners heads.
What Rush was doing was puting on something to please a number fo viewers. If Rush felt Simon had a chance he would say that he felt Simon had a chance to win. His screener would be prepared with a caller to recite some anecdotal evidence that Rush was correct that Simon was going to win.
When a talk show host doesn't think a guy has a chance, he put a groopie on, and then lets her say it. Then the host politiely refuses to disagree with her. It had to be a woman. Becuase men disagree with men. But gentlemen do not openly disagree with ladies. Rush has to preserve his reputation for being right. But enough of doing talk shows.
The only reason Davis spent 10 milllion dolars trashing Riordin was he was pretty sure Riordin could beat him. That means the polls showed it. The polls and focus groups also showed that the Repubilcans in California could be manimpulated into nominating a Republican the research said could not beat davis. It could not have been a two or 5 point thing. It had to be twenty. Democrats don't spend 10 million dollars to get a couple of point advantage. 10 million spent said it was a slam dunk. Otherwise the 10 million would have been put to other use.
Davis had to feel he had just one chance. He had to get Simon nominated. So he spent 10 million and got it done. Now Simon is crying for everyone to come help him.
For 200 years it has worked like this... When a president ask for something and people do it, he helps them. Typically when he asks someone not to run, and they don't they get rewarded. When they don't follow his advice he does not help them. In the past some presidents hurt such people and their voters. LBJ comes to mind. He moved a military base and put lots of people out of work because they nominated a guy LBJ did not want to be nominated.
At this stage it is up to Simon to figure out a way to win. He proved he could win with lots of help from Davis. Now he has to prove he can win with Davis against him. If he can't no one out side his base in California will lift a finger for him.
That is just the way the game is played. Simon grew up in politics. He knows the rules. He can't plead ignorance. Most likely his political career will be over this fall. Davis will be elected and no president or governor in the future will even answer his phone calls. Prhaps he can get a show in MSNBC.
Politics in the United States has been a team sport for over 200 years. To get to the top one has to support and follow the directions of the guys who are currently at the top. Fail to do that and you have no where to go in politics. No one will in the party will use you or help you again. Loyalty ain't everything. It is the only thing. No one wins at the polls with out it.
Simon must believe that his 6 months of fame in California will be worth it. He certainly knows the score.
Huh? Bush stayed out of the NJ primary like he stayed out of the Calif. primary. If Bush really wanted Riordan he would have publicly campaigned for him.
BTW, just because "Businessweek" has the word "Business" in their title doesn't mean they are conservative. Businessweek was very supportive of Clinton. As for the $300,000 that was raised, they don't mention if it was for Riordan or the party.
BTW, the Schundler campaign still leaves a lot of bitterness on FR, but Bret isn't entirely blameless. I have seen on replies on FR that Bret laid back and dissed the grassroots for two months Also his opponent McGreevey had been running for 4 years and the NJ RINO establishment(especilally DeFrancesco not Franks) were the ones who stabbed Bret in the back.
Neither, so I stay home now AND in 2004 if this is how my "pro-life, pro-freedom" President uses his political capital.
Don't principles matter? If not, screw 'em all. That's not why I'm involved in politics, to cater to some Mafia boss at the top whose name is Clinton, Johnson, or Bush.
Close but not quite true. The parties are 35 percent Democrat and 35 percent Republican and 30 percent in the middle.. give or take a percent or two each election cycle.
The blacks are 12 percent of the voters. If both parties bases stay in line it takes 51 percent to win. Every Democrat thinks about how to get to 51 percent. Getting from 35 to 51 percent demands the Democrat get 16 percent out of the middle. To do that the Democrat must move right.. He must move toward the center to get to 51 percent.
If he were to lose some of the blacks in the process he would not likely move more toward the blacks. If he loses half the blacks you might think he needs 6 more percent of the center to make up for it. It is true that if he goes after some more of the center he loses no center in the effort. But if he tries to regain the blacks he lost, he loses nearly all of the center. He gets the blacks back but is stuck at 35 percent. Since the Blacks are not likely to vote for a Republican he does not need to replace all the blacks he lost with people from the center. When a Democrat gets more than 15 percent out of the center it comes out of the potential Republican vote. Our Democrat then no longer needs 51 percent to win. With the six percent blacks gone to a Nader, he replaces them with 4 percent of the middle. Our Democrat now has 48 percent. But since our Republican will only get his 35 base and what is left of the center he gets a max of 46 percent. That is because the center went 19 to 11 for the Democrat. Democrat wins 48 to 46.
The same logic applies to conservatives. Conservatives like blacks can't elect anyone. But a bit over half of the center and most repubicans can. No Democrat with a brain will give up the center to gain all the blacks. And no Repubilcan with a brain would give up the center for all or even most of the right wing conservatives.
Conservatives rarely think about how to get what they want. They mostly think about punishing those Republicans that go after enough center to win. That is why Blacks get a lot of what they want and Conservatives do not.
You are involved in losing at the polls. That is not politics.
There are two rules that must be accomplished to make a change in government. That have to be achieved in this order or nothing you want to happen will ever happen.
1. The first object is to get the majority of the public
to agree with what ever you want to have happen.
2. Then second thing to do is to celebrate your victory.
You are trying to elect people who will do what you want. Let me give you an example. Lets say that I could wave a wand and 65 percent of Americans were demanding the right to bear arms.
The Republicans would introduce a bill. The Democrats would introduce a bill. The Republican bill would allow anyone to keep and bear arms any where any time. People could open carry or hide them in their clothes if they wished. Kids could carry machine guns to first grade. The Dmeocrat's bill would be identical execept that poor people would get government subsidized guns. The Democrat bill would establish the GFPF agency to provide guns for all poor people. The elected officials would compromise.. Poor people would get guns for half price.
That is the way our sytem works. We have a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. People are elected to represent us. They do the peoples will. They do not RULE US. They are our servents. They don't have principles. They are servants. They do what we want done. That is why they go through that demeaning election process begging their bosses for each measly vote.
The secret is to persuade the American people.
For 80 years the right has tried to elect people who will do what they want. They have met with failure.
The Democrats have spent the last 80 years educating people to believe what they believe.
I believe Bush cast his lot with a probable winner in order to be backing a winner. How could anyone know that Simon would come on so strong and appeal to so many? Also, how could anyone suspect Gray-out Davus would spend a bundle to bash Riordan?
IMHO
Hmmmm.....
Question for ya: Is Bob "married" to Barney?
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.