PING! 
Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.
Posted on 08/24/2003 9:10:00 PM PDT by Pokey78
IRONICALLY, Bill Simon's best day as a recall candidate was his last. Unable to raise money, generate support from his party's power players, or earn attention amidst the media circus that is Arnoldmania, Simon found a novel way to get noticed: drop out.
"There are too many Republicans in this race and the people of our state simply cannot risk a continuation of the Gray Davis legacy," Simon said in a videotaped statement released Saturday morning. "For these reasons I think it's wise to step aside."
Such was Simon's luck that he wasn't even the first of the 135 recall candidates to withdraw voluntarily. That distinction goes to Scott Davis, a Palo Alto businessman who bowed out after it was reported that he's a prime suspect in the killing of the lover of his estranged wife. Now there's a shocker. Next thing you know, we'll find reality-TV contestants with checkered pasts. Speaking of which, how did Rick Rockwell miss out on recall?
Simon, who ran and lost to Gray Davis in last fall's gubernatorial contest, deserves credit for making the right choice. The first three recall polls showed little hope for his candidacy--no lower than 4 percent, no higher than 8 percent. At present, Arnold shows no signs of coming back to the Republican pack and Tom McClintock shows no sign of surrender. And Simon? His campaign was based on the premise that Davis lied last year about the size of the budget deficit (true) and therefore voters would hand him the office he deserved (false). If Simon had run a better campaign last year, free of such silly blunders as failing to cleanly release his tax returns, he'd had have spared the public the bother of this recall as he'd already be governor.
Complicating matters was that the only way Simon could have gotten attention was at Schwarzenegger's expense by running a negative campaign that would have drained millions from his personal fortune, failed, and all but ended his future in California Republican politics. He had started down that path before his surprise withdrawal, taking out radio ads trashing Arnold over his choice of tax-friendly Warren Buffett as an economic advisor. From here out, the Democrats will have to pay to trash Arnold.
Simon now has options. He can challenge Barbara Boxer in next year's Senate race (the Republican field is wide open), angle for a visible role if there's a Schwarzenegger administration, or run for a statewide constitutional office in 2006. If he chooses the latter, he should consider the State Treasurer's office, which is currently occupied by Democrat Phil Angelides. Angelides is the prototypical Sacramento insider--ripe for a fall in an Arnold-defined, post-recall California. Plus, he's as much a culprit in the state budget fiasco as Davis, failing to sell Wall Street on the merits of California as the state's leading bond pitchman. (Ironically Simon had his eye on that job before political consultants talked him into running for governor.)
So how does Simon's exit impact the October 7 vote? Simon's name remains on the ballot but his supporters will have to choose for themselves: He didn't endorse anyone in his exit statement.
AS THIS WEEKEND'S Los Angeles Times poll shows, there are still plenty of choices for Republicans. Once again, we have a statewide survey that finds Republicans split--22 percent for Arnold, 25 percent for three other Republicans (including former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth, who's running as an independent but is listed on the ballot as a Republican).
In case you're keeping score at home, here's how the first three recall polls handicap the field:
A FEW THOUGHTS: As the risk of running afoul of Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times' pollster, her survey raises lots of questions. (It's worth noting, by the way, that the results are based on a sampling of a wider pool of registered voters, not just likely voters. The PPIC and Field polls stick to likely voters.) Oddity #1: Schwarzenegger has a positive press conference, runs an upbeat bio spot on statewide TV, and yet the Times reports that only a late surge in the poll brings him back to the same level as the Field and PPIC polls. One would assume that, after firming up his credentials as a fiscal conservative, Arnold would get more support from the right. Oddity #2: Democrats had a week in which the dominant story line was intraparty division. Dianne Feinstein told Democrats to vote "no" on recall and skip the second half of the ballot; House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said to vote "yes" on Bustamante. Yet, according to Times, anti-recall sentiment is growing. It just doesn't add up. Oddity #3: Bustamante received key endorsements from Democratic leadership groups, but also unveiled a budget "fix" that, if approved, amounts to the biggest tax increase in California history. Yet, in a survey adjusted for heavier-than-usual Republican turnout, Bustamante's poll numbers are nearly twice as strong as the PPIC's findings. Oddity #4: The Times find that more than one-third of moderate Republican voters would support Schwarzenegger, and one-fourth would vote for Bustamante. This, even though the media have been telling voters night and day that Arnold is pro-choice and pro-gay rights--moderate to liberal on social issues. Bustamante's strength among Republicans sounds fishy: It's the kind of support you'd expect for a more familiar candidate, like Feinstein. What this does suggest is that pollsters could have egg on their faces the morning after the recall vote. Unlike normal elections, recall carries all sorts of variables: an unpredictable turnout; the possibility of first-time voters drawn by a celebrity and a Latino Democrat; and the possibility that voters will be confused by a lengthy, two-part ballot. Toss in the other wildcards of California politics--for example, Republicans won the governor's race in 1982 thanks to an unexpectedly large absentee vote--and it could mean a late night of result-watching on the West Coast. With only 133 candidates left in the race, you'd think the options would narrow. |
Some very interesting points.
The far Right doesn't give a crap about fiscal conservatism. They hold on to some wild eyed myth that California can be a Pro Life state next year.
So Simon lost because he ran an inept campaign? He would be governor today if he had executed better?
Yet the Terminator crew never tires of assuring us that a conservative cannot hope to be elected governor in California.
Which is it, Schwarzepubbies?
So Simon lost because he ran an inept campaign? He would be governor today if he had executed better?
Yet the Terminator crew never tires of assuring us that a conservative cannot hope to be elected governor in California.
Which is it, Schwarzepubbies?
12 posted on 08/25/2003 8:14 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
When Simon ran last year, he recieved virtally no support from state and federal Republican leadership. California leadership supported Reardan and didn't want to support Simon. Bush went to Florida between seven and eleven times, but could only make one short trip to California on Simon's behalf.
Those are the facts. Now, would more support have helped him win. I don't think there's any question of it. State level funding would have been very useful. Appearing with the President is also an excellent boost. He didn't lose by much.
You saw Simon's eight percent polling figures this time. You tell us. Could he have won or not? I think it's fairly obvious what his team thought.
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.