Although I usually agree with you, I have to part company on your support of Wilson. Wilson's "success" happened to coincide with an increase in GOP fortunes nationwide, and he succeeded a fairly successful GOP Governor attempting a "stay the course" stance. The problem, however, is that Wilson was already undermining the situation even as the party was expanding itself in other offices. It came crashing down completely by the time he left office. A large part of why Dan Lungren lost so horribly in '98 was because the voters voiced their displeasure with Wilson (in stark contrast to their "thumbs up" to Deukemejian 8 years prior). Wilson's sledgehammer approach with "those people" (and you know what I'm talking about) has caused (as of now) irreparable damage to the state party. While he may not be entirely to blame, he plays no small part.
You don't defeat rottweilers like Waxman, and Burton, and Brown, and Torres by adopting a let's make nice, conciliatory approach.
And as much as I admire Dan Lungren, he's the personification of that ineffective political strategy.
I'm not saying that Pete Wilson was the answer to all of the GOP's problems, and there are certainly bad public policy decisions-for example, his halfhearted attempt at energy deregulation-for which you can ascribe blame to his administration.
However, I think that-on balance-he was a remarkable, ruthless political figure-who accomplished things that no California governer ever had, and which his successors probably will never emulate-and that the Republican Party could use a lot more Pete Wilsons.