Agree.
Not everything is illegal immigration, my dear Saber.
Posted on 03/17/2002 7:50:29 AM PST by dalereed
Bill Simon as the New Republican
REBUILDING THE PARTY
By Daniel Weintraub
Weintraub writes for The Sacramento Bee. He can be reached via e-mail at dweintraub@sacbee.com.
March 17, 2002
Maybe Bill Simon is the New Republican in this year's race for governor, the one who will redefine his party to make it more palatable to a modern California.
That was supposed to be Dick Riordan's job, but the former Los Angeles mayor stumbled leaving the starting gate. The funny thing is that Simon, who defeated Riordan in the Republican primary, shares his vanquished foe's goal, if not his methods.
Simon is not going to lead Republicans into an era supporting abortion, gay rights and gun control, as Riordan seemed bent on doing. But this Los Angeles businessman has his own strategy for reaching out, a strategy more consistent with his party's principles.
Simon's hope is to erase the Republicans' image as an organization of scolds and moralists, and turn it into a party of economic opportunity. He is trying to build a bridge to urban and suburban voters, entrepreneurs and immigrants in California who believe in individual rights and personal responsibility, and who are weary of the Democrats' devotion to centralized bureaucracy, unions and ethnic identity politics.
"We should try," Simon said on the campaign trail, "to make government as small as humanly possible and as local as possible."
That's a line that might have some appeal with California's libertarian-leaning electorate. But Simon must persuade these same voters that he does not intend to use government as a tool to meddle in peoples' private lives. True, Simon is a deeply religious man who helped found a "family-friendly" television network. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he believes it's the government's job to set the standard for righteousness. He needs to make that point clear.
We already know that Gov. Gray Davis will suggest that Simon, if elected, would try to outlaw abortion, put a gun in every pocket, privatize the schools, rape the environment and let electricity companies loose to prey upon the sick and the poor. The governor's campaign staff will comb Simon's business record for anything that can be used to suggest that he is corrupt or coldhearted.
In response, Simon must find a way to convince Californians that he is not the right-wing monster the Davis ads will depict. Perhaps a photo-op of him surfing off the Los Angeles County coast with his daughter will suffice; or a more prominent campaign role for his wife, who supports abortion rights and until recently was a registered Democrat; or a testimonial from the director of one of the many charities that Simon has helped with his time and his personal fortune.
As he establishes some level of rapport with the electorate, Simon can move onto policy issues, where he will not be lacking for material.
He plans to remind voters that the electricity companies Davis loves to hate are still feasting on Californians, only now they're doing it by cashing in on long-term contracts negotiated by the governor's staff. He can point out that Davis reacted slowly to the energy crisis and then overreacted, locking up too much electricity at too high a price for too long a time, a fact that voters already seem to understand.
Simon also will draw parallels between Davis' tardy response to the energy crisis and his handling of the budget. Simon might be a political novice, but he was ahead of the governor last year in recognizing that the state was in a fiscal tailspin. And, this summer, as Davis grapples with a $15 billion budget gap, Simon will be a shadow governor, offering his views on how he might do things differently.
Where Simon can really challenge Davis, however, is not by playing bean-counter, but by offering his vision for empowering people to solve more of their own problems.
He can stand with the poor parents at Edison Elementary in San Francisco, who fought for the right to have their children's school run by a private company rather than the local school district that had long failed them. That would bring to life Simon's commitment to closing the achievement gap in the schools, a gap responsible for much of the persistent gulf between the rich and poor in California.
He could endorse the cause of low-income housing advocates whom Davis shafted last year when he signed a bill requiring them to pay union-scale wages on their construction projects. That measure, a Davis thank-you gesture to a major campaign donor, will drive up the cost of the homes these nonprofit agencies build for the poor.
Simon also might take a gridlock tour of California's congested urban highways, pointing out that the billions of dollars Davis takes credit for spending on transportation have hardly made a difference to commuters. In that context, Simon could argue that privately built and run toll roads would be a creative way to let people spend less time in traffic and more time with their families.
A Republican candidate who backs the poor, the working class and middle-income folks against entrenched powers protected by the political establishment? That's Simon's definition of being "inclusive." It would be as dramatic a makeover for the party as the image change Riordan had in mind. We'll soon see if it's one Simon is able to sell.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
The Riordans of our party aren't making the "tent" bigger, they're merely moving it. By doing so, we lose at least as many people as we gain.
Yes, but they let (encourage) people to have any kind of sex they want, any time they want, and promise that government will be there to indemnify the public against the consequences. The "moralistic" charge is then flung against Republicans who dare to point out the insanity of such a position.
The things you listed aren't moral issues, to the Democratic way of thinking. They are simply issues where the Democrats believe the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual.
I guess he's not going after the S & M vote.
That is so true and for good reason. When republicans pander for votes they alienate their base and lose big time on the other end when the pandered vote invariably goes to the highest bidding democrat. This reminds me of another well-known Republican.
Not of course that it would occur to the audience or to any of the players -- let alone to greyout Davis -- that there has never been a "right-wing monster."
Every monster there has ever been worthy of the name, from National Socialist Workers Party Fuerher Hitler though Union of Socialist Soviet Republics' Stalin, the mass-murdering "communists" Mao and Pol Pot, the Ba'ath Socialist Soddom Hisson, Havana's billionaire butcher "Communist" Castro, Yassle Dashle, America's first dictator, Beezelbubba KKKli'ton and his fearsome and loathesome spouse Bruno -- every single one of them -- a stinking psychopathological, serially-sexually-predatory, lying, thieving, murdering, gangster bastard posing as a left wing totalitarian.
Mine too unless he suddenly wakes up, drops this amnesty nonsense and starts protecting our country from this secular invasion. Yeah, when Pigs Fly.
Nah,what he is RIGHTLY writing about is the fundie fondness for gleefully screaming "You are going to HELL TO BURN FOREVER!" for having sex of any kind outside of marriage,and their eagerness to put people in jail until they do die for these same "sins".
This,more than any other one issue is what turns people against the Republican Party. Too many Republicans are fond of screaming about "it's none of the governemnt's business!" until it comes to what happens in the bedroom,and then suddenly it IS the governments business,and they should send these people to jail to punish them.
HorseHillary! There is also a form of "Republican PC speech",and anybody who can't recogonize this is blinder than Ray Charles.
WOW! You mean it is the job of government to "let" people have sex? DAMN! I honestly didn't know I had to get their approval! Do they ration it? Moniter positions? Offer "Satisfaction Guaranteed!" warranties?
and promise that government will be there to indemnify the public against the consequences.
Poor baby. Other people are having sex,and you are jealous.
The "moralistic" charge is then flung against Republicans who dare to point out the insanity of such a position.
No,the only "insanity" here comes from people delusional enough to call themselves "conservatives",but want MORE government control over people's lives.
BTW,thanks for jumping in and proving the point I've been trying to make.
We are taking our state back. I pray you help us take California about our vision many years ago. It used to be Constitutional.
. . . it's not true but it is the image that uninformed voters have.
Journalists and liberal politicians are interchangable parts. So that is the natural order of things. If you're Republican you have to be better than the Democrat who wants the job. If you're about equal, you have no real chance.
Agree.
Not everything is illegal immigration, my dear Saber.
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.