Posted on 04/28/2002 11:33:29 AM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
April 9, 2002--Given up for dead following the rout in their state of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election California Republicans may be on the verge of a remarkable comeback. Amost in spite of themselves. Their party is still in turmoil, split nastily between conservatives and liberals, with the party chairman emasculated by a new party regulation that takes away his ability to spend party funds.
In spite of these problems, Reagan conservative William Simon Jr., the party’s surprise nominee for governor in last month’s very early primary, is running a stronger race than most political experts believed possible. One poll shows him running seven points ahead of incumbent Democrat Gray Davis who, according to polls, is seen by a majority of Californians to be a weak leader. Interestingly, despite the fact that he is a pro-life Catholic, Simon is running well among women.
But the general election is still seven months away, plenty of time for the situation to change. In Davis he is facing a tough, no-holds-barred, bulldog of a candidate who has nearly 30 million dollars in his campaign kitty. This means that Simon, though independently wealthy, is going to have to concentrate during the spring and summer months on raising money.
Never an easy task, Simon’s fundraising is being hampered by the failure of many of the party’s wealthy liberals to gather around. The man he beat in the primary, Richard Riordan, who could be a major help in raising money, has passed the word that he will not help unless Simon reverses his position on abortion. Simon, who knows full well that flipflopping on major issues is the road to defeat, has refused to do so.
The state’s other key Republican, the liberal Gerald Parsky, also is sitting on the fence, largely because he and Simon‘s father, now dead, were bitter personal enemies.
Parsky’s dog in the manger attitude, however, is putting President Bush between a rock and a hard place. Parsky is Bush’s man in California. In fact, he has fastened himself so tightly to the president he is called by party activists by the derisive nickname of Velcro.
If he is not careful, however, this could change. While Reardan, not Simon, was the White House’s first choice for governor, Bush, with Simon running so well, cannot afford to abandon him. In fairness, Bush has shown no sign of this. In fact, there is every indication he is doing and will do whatever he can to help elect him.
If this indeed is Bush’s intention one of the first things he must do is activate Parsky on Simon’s side because, for all his lack of good political instincts, Parsky is a top-notch fund raiser.
Secondly, Bush must make it plain to the entire liberal wing of the California Republican party that Simon is his man and that he expects their support.
A year ago, in the New Jersey governor’s race Bush failed to do this and the Republican candidate, the conservative Brett Schundler, abandoned by his party’s liberal wing and given half-hearted support by the White House, lost. It is unlikely that Bush, who is a smart politician, will make that mistake again.
If Simon were given no chance to win Bush perhaps could afford to let Parsky continue to play the skunk at the garden party. But not under present circumstances. A Simon victory in November would make California a state Bush could win in 2004. A Simon loss would have just the opposite effect.
It was not so long ago that the California Republican Party, in a shambles after Barry Goldwater’s overwhelming loss to Lyndon Johnson, two years later rejected a liberal Republican candidate and picked a conservative named Ronald Reagan as its gubernatorial nominee..
That year, 1966, Reagan went on to beat a strong incumbent governor by more than a million votes. And two years later, in the presidential election, when the state was crucial to the Republicans, Reagan was a key factor in carrying California for Richard Nixon president and then re-electing him four years later.
Bush knows this. And he knows, also, that history is not likely to repeat itself in the presidential years unless Simon wins in November.
Does he have a chance? Another thread says he is down 14 points, not up 7 points.
Oh, you're only suggesting "advocating a simple biology lesson"? Well then my mistake. (BTW I think it's relevant to add something here: I was educated in California. Like everyone I took Biology in school. During the reproduction unit my bio teacher didn't mince words and even showed us color slides of cut-up unborn babies, in class. He didn't do this at the behest of a politician, he just did it because he was a good teacher. So I'm not sure why this proposal you crave is even necessary.)
Anyway, the real point here is that just because Simon doesn't adopt your proposal doesn't mean he's not pro life! Evidently you have, here, a disagreement with Mr. Simon over election strategy. You think that advocating such a thing in a campaign would be a fine idea and would not doom a gubernatorial candidate; Mr. Simon and/or his campaign staff (evidently) disagrees (as do I). It is a disagreement over what will best help him get elected.
Now perhaps you are right and his campaign staffers (and I) are wrong. But that still wouldn't make us "not pro-life".
[ [advocating pro-life school lessons in a campaign] Do you honestly think it would work? ] Yes. Do you honestly think the media represents public opinion?
No, I don't think the media "represents public opinion". But I do think that a gubernatorial candidate advocating what you suggested would lose, regardless. That's my opinion and assessment of the body politic. I could be wrong. *shrug*. You could be right.
Still wouldn't make me (or Simon) "not pro-life" though.
Pardon me if I momentarily recoil at being called ignorant by someone who thinks a dog catcher has the same power over taxes that a governor has over abortion.
It was only an analogy and not meant to be taken as literally as (evidently) you have.
Anyway, I think what's been established is the following: Simon is pro-life, he never "reversed" himself about this, and your main disagreement with him is really over election strategy. You think he could do/advocate certain things and still get elected; it's safe to say that he does not. Oh, well. What can I say. I understand your disagreement with him now, and respect it. I wish you luck in finding the rare candidate who would satisfy you in this regard. Best,
Outstanding. Now, when it becomes mandatory for everyone, we can celebrate.
Anyway, I think what's been established is the following: Simon is pro-life, he never "reversed" himself about this, and your main disagreement with him is really over election strategy.
I will give you that he has not reversed himself. However, as I said, his position is next to useless for the pro-life cause. If a single-issue pro-lifer is planning on voting for him out of a belief that he will actively fight to reduce abortions or lead cultural change, then they need to think long and hard. Would Simon be marginally better than Davis? Of course. But if pro-life voters don't start demanding more, then this is all we'll ever get -- weak pro-life politicians who "hold the line," but never advance the cause. And considering where the line is currently, that's not an appealing prospect.
"LG"
Perhaps, but the latest Field Poll shows that Davis has little advantage among women. He has 43% per the Field Poll, and 43% among women. Where is the outrage about Simon being "anti-abortion rights" or "anti-pro choice" (Davis REALLY said that!)
Methinks the abortion issue is a wash. The pro-aborts and the pro-lifers who are passionate and single issue are split 50/50. No gain on either side (though it would fatally damage Simon to flip to a pro-abort position. Fortunately, he's solidly pro-life). And single issue pro-lifers edged out single-issue pro-aborts in the Lungren/Davis race in 1998 by a point.
Anyway, my point is that Davis IS NOT getting a benefit from his rabid pro-abort, kill all babies in the womb if you want to, position.
People CARE about the economy, people CARE about the net loss of $35 billion ($13 billion surplus to a $22 billion deficit), people CARE that they are paying nearly 50% more for energy than neighboring states, people CARE that public schools are failing, people CARE that test scores are down and all the education establish does to fix it is give teacher's more money and change the tests so it doesn't look as bad. And, while they're at it, put more kids on Ritalin to keep them drugged and compliant.
People CARE, Mr. Davis, that you are a megalomaniac, do anything to win, big government LIBERAL!
DUMP DAVIS!
In my opinion, I think that the rabid pro-aborts are trying to internally justify involvement with a past abortion. If the abortion was the killing of an innocent human life, the guilt eats them up. If the abortion is a choice, they can live with it.
Most people are tepid about the issue. Some pro-lifers are passionately pro-life because they realize what happens to the unborn baby during the abortion and it sadden and sickens them. Or because they are religious and the baby is God's creation. Or because they don't like that there are so many abortions for convenience sake and they think we should stop, take a breather, offer limited abortions.
The pro-aborts are either pro-abortion (abortion on demand throughout nine months, no questions) because to be anything less is to acknowledge that the unborn "fetus" is a human being. Then there are the "pro-choicers" who really haven't thought much about it, but don't like the idea that "government" is involved in personal decisions (great PR campaign on the pro-abort side). They somewhat acknowledge that abortion is bad, and most don't support abortion after the first trimester, but they aren't ready to acknowledge that the "lump of tissue" in the first twelve weeks is a human being. It's a disconnect.
Anyway, that's my opinion. The vocal minority of pro-aborts is guilt. They need the assurance that they aren't murderers.
Good point!
Perhaps. My assessment of the current political climate is that this would not be feasible, and anyone suggesting it would be demonized not just "by the press" but in the minds of too many actual voters to ever get elected to anything.
Like I said, I could be wrong and you could be right about this political reality. I reject the idea, though, that my above assessment, however misguided it may be, somehow makes me "not pro-life".
However, as I said, his position is next to useless for the pro-life cause.
This is a much weaker statement, and perhaps on balance it is essentially true. A Governor Simon from 2002-2006 likely would not make much headway for the pro-life movement. I suppose I agree.
Call me crazy but I still prefer him to Mr. Davis though :)
If a single-issue pro-lifer is planning on voting for him out of a belief that he will actively fight to reduce abortions or lead cultural change, then they need to think long and hard.
Agreed. Single-issue pro-lifer voters have a long and frustrating road ahead of them in general, of course, no matter what the race or candidates.
Would Simon be marginally better than Davis? Of course.
Hallelujah, we agree ;)
Despite the fact that he could, if he so chose. Sad.
Single-issue pro-lifer voters have a long and frustrating road ahead of them in general, of course, no matter what the race or candidates.
Unmistakably true, so long as their standards are so low.
Actually, just about every believing Roman Catholic who submits to the magisterium of the Church would qualify.
I've enjoyed reading your well-written and considered posts on this topic. They would have conveyed as much information if they had not been besprinkled with quite so many references to ignorance, annoyance, and wobbling knees. It reminds me of the great advantage the apparatchiks have always enjoyed over conservatives, which is their willingness to sort themselves out functionally by rank order and to sink to the level of the ant-pile in order to accomplish their objectives. Personally, I would rather associate with people like you.
My working opinion of your exchange is that Dr. Frank's abundance of wisdom about the way things are, however incisive, is still lacking in the courage and vision that Newt Gingrich displayed in taking on the massed forces of the Left. Even in defeat, Gingrich, like Goldwater before him, forced them to display themselves, which otherwise they so rarely do, except on the one occasion when I saw a reference to Alan Keyes provoke columnist and talking head David Broder, who let his mask slip just for a moment and actually curled his lip in a snarl. We need more of these illuminating moments, and I think Helmsman's initiative and brio are what is needed, just as Reagan's and Newt's were years ago. That said, I think Helmsman's stated reluctance to support Simon is a mistake, and that it would be better to support Simon fully while encouraging him openly to take stronger positions. I don't think that Simon's strategy, articulated by Dr. Frank, of letting many issues remain silent, and then trying to move policy on them without a mandate once in office, is the way to carry one's argument with the people. You may get what you want, but you'll never be able to claim a mandate.
I will grant Dr. Frank that he knows California and the ferocity and operative power of Left journopolemicists (my coinage). Nevertheless, it is necessary to engage them, even to lose, to show the world how abysmal their values are, and to provoke them to mighty lies that will undo their cause later : "I'm not gonna send our boys to fight a land war in Asia", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and so on. Barry Goldwater lost, but his issues won when Ronald Reagan was elected. After Reagan's election, Leftist advocacy journalism faded for several years (being confined to complaints about Teflon) and only revived in the last year of his presidency.
I agree with Helmsman, that we need to articulate issues like the abortion issue, in order to receive the mandate not just to administer and to borrow the bully pulpit for a while, but to introduce changes that will wash away the statist Great Society and cut the ligatures with which Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton sought to bind the people to the State and to its party.
Just my humble opinion, friends.
I suppose I'm inclined to agree. However, even Courageous Newt didn't do a whole lot about abortion that I can recall. Keep in mind that we are talking about a very specific issue here (abortion). I reckon if Newt and his revolution has a legacy for which he deserves credit, it's welfare reform.
We are not talking about welfare reform. My views on the electability of candidates advocating strong welfare reform positions are much different, you realize.
I don't think that Simon's strategy, articulated by Dr. Frank, of letting many issues remain silent, and then trying to move policy on them without a mandate once in office, is the way to carry one's argument with the people.
Actually I'll go you one further. I didn't mean to imply (and don't really think) that Simon will, after remaining silent, spring helmsman's ideas on the state after winning. I essentially agreed with helmsman that a Governor Simon would have little tangible pro-life impact on the policy of the state (except perhaps by comparison with the Davis alternative). My argument with him was more focused on (1) rebutting the notion of a Simon "reversal", and (2) slightly more generally, the idea that a Simon failure to live up to helmsman's prescriptions for changing the culture to a pro-life position means he's "not pro-life".
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
You may get what you want, but you'll never be able to claim a mandate.
The presumption here seems to be that such a mandate exists, or can exist after a few months of a campaign by a vigorous pro-lifer. I guess I don't think so. Now before you accuse me of believing media lies, No, I don't think the state (not even California) is so monolithically pro-abortion as the media would like us to believe. Maybe the ratio of strong pro-aborts to strong pro-lifers here is something relatively modest: 45-35 or 42-38 or 37-31 or 37-35 or even 35-37 for all I know. But the idea that a candidate could find a mandate to call upon, or create one, by advocating such things as tax money being spent on pro-life commercial advertisements strikes me as completely out of touch with reality. (Of course I could be wrong, as I've said many times on this thread :)
Nevertheless, it is necessary to engage them, even to lose, to show the world how abysmal their values are, and to provoke them to mighty lies that will undo their cause later
I guess what I like about Simon's (apparent) position is the following: 1. he is consistent and sincere in saying that his personal beliefs are pro-life. 2. he is pragmatic and in touch with reality by acknowledging that a state governor, under our current governmental setup, lacks the power to outlaw abortions. The conclusion is clear, his personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position. Those who would argue with him have an uphill climb - they have to argue that no decent person should even privately hold a pro-life opinion (which will expose them, which is what you want, right?), or they have to scare people into thinking that he will indeed abuse and overreach his power once in office (which is an untenable claim to be making as long as Simon remains consistent), or both.
On the contrary, Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries were the ones who had the nerve to introduce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which set off a national debate over late abortions and their consequences to the child. This, in turn, created cultural change. Not only did it grow pro-life public support generally and solidify the social consensus against late abortions, but it also made the pro-life agenda politically easier to accomplish by showing those in this country who are not pro-life exactly why pro-lifers are. All of a sudden, we weren't a bunch of woman-hating neanderthals, we were possibly a group of humanitarians legitimately concerned about the suffering of children. We were "on to something," as the liberal columnist Richard Cohen put it. But, I suppose you also disapproved of taking the political risks involved in pushing this ban, didn't you?
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
I wouldn't expect a pro-life candidate to put it in those terms, anymore than I would expect a pro-abortion candidate to say "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at birth, and that abortion is therefore morally justifiable." The pro-abortion candidate would not say this, even though that is essentially what he supports and what is already going on in many schools. A more sophisticated way to sell this pro-life policy would be to turn the concept of choice back on the pro-abortionists by saying "There can be no choice in abortion if the decision is made by a woman without a full understanding of the developmental issues concerning the unborn child. While abortion is currently legal in this state, it should never be practiced in ignorance. I, therefore, support a full range of common sense policies designed to educate the public about fetal development and abortion alternatives so that we may insure that women, and those who counsel them, are making an educated and informed choice they can live with." There, you see, doesn't that sound a lot better? Now, tell me, are you this politically unsophisticated on all issues, or just abortion? Perhaps you're better at welfare reform?
The conclusion is clear, his [Simon's] personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position
And he would not be violating his position as governor at all by aggressively advocating informed consent, a partial-birth abortion ban, and cultural initiatives to reduce abortions. And what does it matter if his "personal beliefs" are pro-life if he won't act on them? I hear that Richard Riordan is also supposedly "personally opposed" to abortion. And, of course, he too would have done nothing as governor to stop or reduce the practice. So, we agree then that, as it stands, there really is no serious difference between Riordan and Simon on this issue, right?
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.