Posted on 01/09/2002 6:53:47 AM PST by DadOf3
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) -- Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan is scheduled to appear Wednesday morning at a breakfast meeting of the group ANGLE -- Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality.
It's more proof, said deputy press secretary Matt Szabo, that Riordan is running as "himself" as he seeks the GOP nomination for governor.
It also may be more proof that the moderate Riordan is out of synch on social issues with many of the state's Republicans, who tend to be conservative.
ANGLE is a group of about 20 people that endorses gay-friendly candidates, works to get gay candidates elected and raises money to promote issues of importance to the gay and lesbian community.
The group endorsed Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 1998 and was prepared to do so again at a meeting a couple months ago before members decided to hold off and hear from Riordan, said board member Steve Tyler.
"It's difficult because Riordan has been a friend to the community. He did a great job for gays and lesbians," Tyler said. "I have never seen the gay and lesbian community as divided."
The endorsement issue is on the agenda for an ANGLE retreat Saturday, and Tyler said he hopes the matter will be settled then.
How can I vote for this guy now???? I told a pollster a few weeks back that he was my man. I didn't know anything like this. What else is there about Mayor Riordan that I don't know??? Is he just another Liberal Democrat?
Does either of the other guys running have a chance to beat him? I'm so mad I can't see straight!
Simon.
Bill is not the RINO 'establishment' pick, and is actually the preferable Republican candidate in the eyes of Gray Davis. Riordan, the left moderate Republican is the much tougher opponent because of California demographics.
That is an intellectually lazy conclusion. Easy to say - -not so easy to support with facts.
For that to be true, you would need to have liberal Republicans winning when they are the nominee and conservatives losing. That's not what is happening in California. In recent years Republicans have lost quite a few races, and in fact liberal Republicans have given up more formerly Republican seats than conservatives have. In 2000 we gave up four house seats only one was a conservative. The Senate nominee that year was a notoriius liberal Republican and he got his clock cleaned.
Both the Senate and Assembly minority leaders in California are prolife conservatives. That means more than half of the GOP members of those caucuses voted for them. Sorry, but your conclusions just aren't supported by the facts.
Part of the reason Republicans have lost high-profile races in recent years is because we have had nominees who weren't terribly exciting and didn't stand for much (like Riordan).
Bill Simon is the conservative candidate for governor. After he wins the nomination you will see activism in California that has been missing since the Reagan days. Not only can a conservative win, that's what it will take. Wait and see.
Why vote for destructive policies and have them associated with the Republican Party? Look at electricity "deregulation" or MTBE in the name of Clean Air? Did those do Republicans any good? I'd grab a barf bag and vote for Davis first so that the policies could be properly discredited!
I don't understand. You say that Simon is an alternative, but think that Davis would rather run against Simon than Riordan because Riordan is a tougher opponent. I completely and totally disagree.
First, Riordan is too liberal to win the Republican primary. He is so far to the left that he is more liberal than many Democrats. Second, why would any Democrats cross over and vote for Riordan over Davis? They can have one of their own -- liberal Davis -- why vote for a Republican who agrees with Davis on the most important Democrat issues?
Finally, to win a general election in California, the Republican candidate must offer two things: intelligence (and with intelligence comes common sense, the ability to communicate with people, and being personable, likeable) and two, must offer a difference, a change, from the Democrat. Riordan does not meet either criteria. He isn't that smart and often says dumb things (his campaign tries to build it as "being himself") and isn't a good communicator; Riordan also offers nothing different from Davis.
Bill Simon meets both criteria. He is very smart, very articulate, has common sense, and is a good communicator. When you listen to him, you know that he says what he means and means what he says, that he understands the issues, and because he is coming from the private sector, he brings a wealth of understanding and knowledge at how government is a hinderance to families and businesses, something that the politicians (Jones, Riordan and Davis) have no understanding of.
But most important, Simon offers a change, a difference, an alternative. It won't be business as usual. Simon won't increase spending by 37% in three years. He is NOT the Republican version of Gray Davis. He has clear plans, smart solutions, and the ability to bring people to the polls.
People who think that Riordan will win mistakenly think that the same people vote in every election and just decide if they will vote Democrat or Republican. On the contrary, the electorate is constantly changing. If there is no one positive on the ballot, people will stay him. Christians, unfortunately, are the ones who tend to stay home when we have amoral or immoral people running for office. I don't blame them. But we have a moral candidate for governor who also happens to be smart. Christians should come out in droves for Simon. They won't for Riordan.
What you might not know about Riordan:
I could go on and on, which I did in the post above which you should read because I tried to explain why a Republican as liberal as Riordan can't win either the primary or the general.*He gave money to Gray Davis and other Democrats. I believe that he has given more money to Democrats than to Republicans.
*He endorsed Dianne Feinstein over her Republican opponent (who is just as liberal as he is, why couldn't he support him?)
*He called Bill Clinton one of the greatest presidents.
*He OPPOSED Proposition 22, the ultra-successful initiative that declared that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
*He SUPPORTS abortion on demand. He wants you to pay for abortions.
*He refused to answer the question on whether he would support distributing contraceptives to 13 year-olds (though his wife says "they" support it because 13 year-olds are having sex and should be given contraceptives)
*He has said that guns should confiscated, even if that means going door to door and seizing them.
*He opposes the death penalty. (In fact, he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but thinks that every woman should be allowed to have one if they want and you should pay for it; he is "personally opposed" to the death penalty, but since it's the law he'll send people to the electric chair. Meaning: nothing he believes matters.
Even Pete Wilson, who was pro-abortion, was not as far to the left as Riordan. Wilson, even for those of us who didn't like him, had a set of beliefs and principles and acted on them. Riordan is more liberal than Gray Davis.
I agree with you, and my prayer is that, unlike what happened to Schundler in New Jersy, the moderate Republican establishment(moneyed elites/RINOS) in California will work as hard for Simon as they would have for Riordan. Can't afford to have godless Republicans staying home either---Not in this state!
The reason I think Riordan is the tougher challenge for Davis is because they are so much alike. With the City of Los Angeles and his political capital, Riordan appeals to those that want a person change(Gray economics) and not an ideological change. Gray will falsely, IMHO, use the 'extreme right-winger' claim against Simon to cause voter fear. That 'dog won't hunt' against Riordan.
Can Simon take the 'hill' that Schundler couldn't? My hope and prayer is that with God's help, and ours, he can. But, he must be BOLD and not moderate, like erstwhile Senator Matt(moved to the middle) Fong.
I wasn't in California during Gov. Reagan's days and only the last two of Pres. Reagan's years. I would like to see the Republican activism you are telling me is here. I sensed some increased conservative energy in 2000, not enough to make a difference; but a 'gathering' storm???
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.