Why Simon Lost

National Review Online ^ | 11/7/02 | Arnold Steinberg

[BlueLancer]

"Why Simon Lost"

Because he didn't get as many votes as Davis?

[gc4nra]

I agree! I am willing to ride out four more years of Davis if it makes things better in the long run and I think it will.

[gc4nra]

"You sound like a democrat, making excuses and blaming others. Simon was in charge, of his "handlers." He is, therefore, RESPONSIBLE."

Disagree, Gerald Parsky("W"s boy),who was very upset his buddy Riordan didn't win, was in charge of the purse-strings and was niggardly in giving funds to Simon's campaign.

[Carry_Okie]

the "we're the pros" handlers who kept a tight leash on Bill Simon for fear he would make a mistake...but they were the ones who were making them all. Unfortunately, it seems they were successful in convincing an inexperienced candidate to go along ... that's the only downfall of having someone who's a novice.

Precisely as I was saying last spring. Let's take a look at the charges in this article:

Immediately, they should have collected big checks from the nation's wealthiest conservatives.

That is supposedly why Rove put Parsky in charge of the CRP. Riordan was Parsky's candidate. Parsky hated Simon's dad because of a bad business deal that was his own fault. He didn't lift a finger except to give it to Bill.

Within days, they should have launched a direct-mail blitz to raise millions in small donations.

Parsky wouldn't release the money for the computers to do it.

You roll up your shirtsleeves and you create visual stories. You set the agenda for your campaign. Don't wait for Davis to do it.

Agreed. This is why I sent exactly this type of material to the campaign in JUNE. It didn't get through the "professional consultants" in charge.

Instead, they complained about no money for TV.

Maybe that has something to do with the 15% kickback those consultants get for TV advertising.

Know this: Simon systematically deleted the premises of his candidacy.

Correct, by ignoring his own record in charity at Covenant House, a record that should have endeared him to inner city LA and Oakland, which is where he lost the war.

a) boldly said he was a business success but would not talk about it;
b) properly challenged the scandalous Davis fundraising but would not release Simon's tax returns;
c) wisely charged Davis with gross mismanagement, but was itself a fiasco.

All correct, and much of it was Simon's own fault, especially the tax return.

Simon was ill-served by an ever-growing team of seniors and formers. Senior strategists, consultants, media advisers, conflicted and leaking to the press.

My understanding is that Parsky wouldn't release the Party funds unless Simon took the people Parsky dictated. My understanding is that Rove put the money Bush raised into Parsky's hands.

Out of which grew Photo-gate.

It was fatal, and totally discounted the Nathanson letters. Brilliant backsatabbing.

[Grut]

Simon did exceedingly well.

Repeat after me: "This-parrot-is-DECEASED!"

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry, this post was meant for you as well.

[Saundra Duffy]

From today's Sacramento Bee:

Cracks inside Simon's camp Jamie Fisfis -- Special to The Bee Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, November 7, 2002

Bill Simon's political team inadvertently accomplished what no one thought possible just two years ago: They ran a campaign against Democrat Gov. Gray Davis without mentioning the energy crisis.

Team Simon tried to run the Republican candidate for governor as an ethical standard-bearer in moderate California. The strategy wasted four years of work by Republicans in the Legislature, who hammered Davis on energy missteps and then heroically sustained a budget debate until September even as it was obvious that Team Simon was doing nothing to take advantage of their efforts. Instead, the Simon campaign defied the wisdom of all its polling, its extensive focus groups and even recent California political history. It entered the ethics minefield.

There were many reasons to avoid it. The most pernicious side effect of any Republican attack on an opponent's ethics is that it switches the subject away from fiscal issues -- the economy and jobs. Simon behind a podium rattling off ethical charges looks a lot more like Kenneth Starr than Jack Kemp. As with any businessman, he has been involved in litigation and was destined to be tarred by the Davis machine as unethical and was therefore a poor messenger. Garry South's plea to the press corps to focus on Simon's business background should have left no doubt in Team Simon.

Even history was aligned against an ethical assault on the chief executive. In 1998, Republicans in California suffered massive losses in the wake of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

But here's the real curiosity about adopting this losing strategy: Simon's own polling showed that the economy and education -- not ethics -- were the top issues, and his very own focus groups clearly showed that Davis' dismal performance on energy could be used to discredit him. In fact, because of energy, Davis was seen by voters in the Simon focus groups as a failure on every issue. In one famous focus group session in Orange County, dozens of former Davis voters angrily switched to Simon when merely shown video reminding them of Davis' promise to make education his first, second and third priority. But these video clips were never aired in a Simon ad.

The original Simon Team never planned a one-front ethics assault on Davis' heavy-handed and dubious fund-raising tactics, but the hiring of two former staffers on Secretary of State Bill Jones' failed primary bid for governor ignited what would be perpetual civil war between two camps with different strategies. The camp that wanted to pursue Davis on ethics charges was led by Rob Lapsley and Sean Walsh. The other camp, largely Simon's primary team, wanted the assault to focus on what we called the "three by three" -- energy, education and the economy.

These camps waged internal war for a month, but the refusal to release Simon's tax returns gave the ethics-attack camp the criticism it needed to make its case to the Republican National Committee that new leadership was needed on the campaign.

In July, Lapsley commandeered Simon's message after his selection as campaign manager.

While Simon accepted the new ethics-attack strategy, from the beginning it made him uncomfortable.

He questioned the text delivered to him at campaign stops along the road. "Does anybody check this stuff out?" he would ask, shaking his head in frustration while crossing out complete sections of prepared text he refused to read.

Irresponsibly wedded to their strategy, these zealots often released Simon's prepared text to the press even after Simon had personally edited out whole sections. This was not in error -- it was in deliberate defiance of any resistance to their strategy. In fact, it was common that two completely different speeches from the two different camps would emerge for the same event.

Whatever Simon's frustration, the Walsh-Lapsley team was empowered to shape his campaign. He sagged from 10 points ahead to 10 points behind, but those who questioned the strategy were shut out or removed from the campaign.

Then came the fraud verdict, and then a string of polls showing Simon trailing the integrity matchup with Davis. None of this deterred the new leadership from launching one of the most painfully embarrassing episodes in political history. Instead of retooling, they reloaded. They had The Photo.

The stubbornness of the zealots on Team Simon is hard to explain, but many suspect that the months of scripted ethical rants were merely a setup for the now infamous COPS photo, since top Simon staff bragged about the COPS photo as a silver bullet as early as June. Despite this lead time, they were frantically sending junior staffers to the Capitol to authenticate the COPS photo a full day after the mistaken charges were leveled.

Still unconvinced their strategy was failing, even after fraud verdicts and photogate, the "ready-fire-aim" Walsh-Lapsley team banked on a convicted felon's charges against Davis to revive the campaign in the final weekend.

The fact is that in order to win, Simon never needed to be a morally superior candidate -- he merely needed to be a superior candidate to a governor who once described his proudest accomplishment as "keeping the friggin' lights on." After this campaign, does anyone even remember that line?

[luckystarmom]

Whose fault is it that there wasn't a strong republican turnout?

[Saundra Duffy]

Simon would have won if Republicans had voted for him. Republicans stayed home in droves. Why?!!!!!! As it is, Simon won in 40 of the 58 counties. This is maddening!

[Saundra Duffy]

It's the "we're the pros" handlers who kept a tight leash on Bill Simon for fear he would make a mistake...but they were the ones who were making them all.

That says it all.

[Saundra Duffy]

Cracks inside Simon's campaign: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784530/posts

[kellynla]

And Saundra, as I said earlier, it is not Simon's fault. He fought the good fight. The California constituency is at fault. And we will pay the consequences for the next four years or unless we move. You and others did a lot more than sit on their collective duffs and complain and criticize. You actually went out and worked for Simon. Most of the complainers and criticizers in this forum did absolutely nothing. Yet they call Simon a "loser" and a "bad candidate." Well you and I know better. And until the voters in CA are fed up with high taxes and incompetencey in Sacramento we will still have to listen to the monday morninng quarterbackers call Simon and others a "loser" and hear their inane complaints ...

[BibChr]

Yeah, and figure this: HE WON IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY!!! Feature THAT!

Dan

[John Lenin]

The best thing happened. This state is ruined and now all the blame goes where it should go.

[truth_seeker]

"Disagree, Gerald Parsky("W"s boy),who was very upset his buddy Riordan didn't win, was in charge of the purse-strings and was niggardly in giving funds to Simon's campaign."

Another excuse.

Why then is he in charge, of Simon's campaign money? Is it Simon's management style, to not have control? Why didn't Simon make the necessary changes?

Did Simon spend all of the money he had available, or did Parsky hold some back? Why didn't Simon get MORE money? Money is RARELY a Republican problem, particularly for wealthy candidates. Why the problem, now, for him alone?

All of the excuses is making me think that Clinton-taught evasion of responsibility is spread throughout even the Republican party.

Or at least the Simon faction.

He was a weak candidate. It was a poorly run campaign. He lost. He was in charge.

Grasp reality. Republicans did much better than expected most other places. Simon just didn't have what it takes.

[kellynla]

Now to you, sir. I don't know where you were raised or where you received your education but I learned a long time ago that only those who do not try are "losers." And since you qualified your comment by saying Simon was a "political loser" is equally incorrect. Simon would only be a "political loser" if he quit! Toricelli was a "loser." And since you moved for whatever reason and are not in the fight here we hardly think you qualified to make any analysis. I suggest you focus on North Carolina politics because your knowledge of CA politics is dated.

[Coop]

Wowie. You're just like the best Monday morning quarterback I've even seen. [yawn]

One of the reasons Bill Simon lost is whiny keyboard critics like you who gave up before summer was over.

[Carry_Okie]

Why then is he in charge, of Simon's campaign money?

Rove put the money in Parsky's hands with signature authority.

Is it Simon's management style, to not have control?

What, do you think a candidate just stands and stomps to get control of a checking account?

Why didn't Simon make the necessary changes?

No candidate has the authorty to change the party chair.

Did Simon spend all of the money he had available, or did Parsky hold some back?

Read Post 44.

Why didn't Simon get MORE money? Money is RARELY a Republican problem, particularly for wealthy candidates. Why the problem, now, for him alone?

Rove made sure the money raised by the GOP was under Parsky's control. Simon would have to have used his own. His funds were constrained by the lawsuit.

[Carry_Okie]

Why then is he in charge, of Simon's campaign money?

Rove put the money in Parsky's hands with signature authority.

Is it Simon's management style, to not have control?

What, do you think a candidate just stands and stomps to get control of a checking account?

Why didn't Simon make the necessary changes?

No candidate has the authorty to change the party chair.

Did Simon spend all of the money he had available, or did Parsky hold some back?

Read Post 44.

Why didn't Simon get MORE money? Money is RARELY a Republican problem, particularly for wealthy candidates. Why the problem, now, for him alone?

Rove made sure the money raised by the GOP was under Parsky's control. Simon would have to have used his own. His funds were constrained by the lawsuit.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry for the bad link in 58.