Bill Simon as the New Republican

Weintraub writes for The Sacramento Bee. He can be reached via e-mail at dweintraub@sacbee.com.

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.

I agree with you on that statement a lot of the time. However, I would add that said fiery conservative must also remember the joke about the old bull and the young bull.

Or, as Kenny Rogers so eloquently put it:

Know when to hold `em,
Know when to fold `em.
Know when to walk away,
Know when to run.

You never count your money
when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time for countin'
When the dealin's done.

Words to live by, IMHO.

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.

"It doesn't necessarily follow?" No, it doesn't follow at all. Indeed, the approach Simon took was to use the system as it is currently set up to offer an alternative to the filth that currently litters the airwaves. How does that in any way equal "theocratic police state?"

Bill Simon doesn't need to make anything clear. If American citizens reject a candidate because they think he's too moral, too ethical, or too religious, then they deserve exactly the kind of leaders they'll get: amoral dirtbag scum (aka Democrats).

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".

Funny, the only place I hear such things is on TV shows trying to create a straw man fundamentalist preacher to attack. And please cite for me the last case where the federal government executed or put anyone in jail for having sex outside of marriage (or a state government, for that matter).

There is now plenty of evidence to indicate that the 'sex anywhere, anytime, with anyone, without responsibility' position is dangerous and foolhardy. This is a legitimate reasonable point of view. Most of us that you would consider 'fundies' only demand that the 'sex anywhere, anytime' point of view not be taught to our children in public schools. And unlike your rant, we can point to dozens of cases where exactly that was done, without parents' permission.

Funny, the only place I hear such things is on TV shows trying to create a straw man fundamentalist preacher to attack.

Funny,but I could touch some of these people on any given day. Some are even related to me.

And please cite for me the last case where the federal government executed or put anyone in jail for having sex outside of marriage (or a state government, for that matter).

Sorry,but I don't keep notes on who was the last victim of the morality police. I DO remember one case in Texas years ago that was pretty well-known. A Texas man was given a 10 year jail sentence for having anal sex with his wife,even though she testified it was at her request. The feds had been investigating him for income tax evasion and drug dealing,and caught the whole thing on video tape.

Surely you can't be ignorant of the sodomy laws several states still have? There are also some states where it is illegal for people who aren't married to each other to have sex,and you are reading the words right now of one person who was threatened with arrest by the police after a neighbor complained to them that I was living with a married woman.

Letter to the editor in todays paper.

The lack of brain function of Davis is reaching the public!

The reason that Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge had to demonstrate the color-coded squares of terror alertness was so politicians like Gov. Gray Davis, who posted National Guard members at state bridges last fall after learning of a threat later proven to be not credible, could understand it.

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.