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 partys surprise nominee for governor in last months 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, Simons fundraising is being hampered by the failure of many of the partys 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 states other key Republican, the liberal Gerald Parsky, also is sitting on the fence, largely because he and Simons father, now dead, were bitter personal enemies.
Parskys dog in the manger attitude, however, is putting President Bush between a rock and a hard place. Parsky is Bushs 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 Houses 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 Bushs intention one of the first things he must do is activate Parsky on Simons 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 governors race Bush failed to do this and the Republican candidate, the conservative Brett Schundler, abandoned by his partys 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 Goldwaters 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.
Riordan is such an abortion-loving slobbering geezer, it makes me sick. He should go retire his flabby country club ass already, and ease my pain.
Anyway, it doesn't matter if Simon officially reverses his stance on abortion. He's already done it unofficially!
Your proof please!! Because I have read every speech he gave, and there is no way he has changed his stance on abortion.
Simon's right - it's a federal law and as Governor, he has no control over the FEDERAL LAWS - whether he agrees with them or not.
and
"That means that he supports the status quo, and the status quo is pro-abortion."
To say - because he won't discuss the issue means he supports it - is the liberal way out. You're insinuating he supports it because he's tried to make it a NON-issue.
and
"there are plenty of things a governor could do to discourage abortion and create cultural change. But Simon is apparently not interested"
If you're so sure there are things he can do as GOVERNOR, that's fine - BUT HE'S NOT GOVERNOR NOW!! And ... NOW, it's a NON-issue. That doesn't mean that Simon has no intention of making it an issue ONCE HE IS ELECTED. And ... do you know for a fact that he will or will not make it an issue?? NO, YOU DON'T - AND YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO STIR UP STUFF BY SAYING SIMON IS SUPPORTING ABORTION - WHEN HE'S CLEARLY NOT!!! You are doing people a disservice by being so narrow minded on this issue.
Governor Davis wants this election to be about abortion instead of his own dismal record. Some misguided conservatives agree with him.
Stymied by their iability to tear down the President, they now are casting about to see which other Republican they can smear.
Evil show its face in many ways, helmsman was just showing one of those ways.
You said what I was thinking, and better than I was about to say it.
There are a couple of Supreme Court decisions that mandate abortion's legality, of course, but even those allow for restrictions and other regulations on the practice. The Casey decision, for example, allows for parental notice and informed consent regulations. The least Simon could do is commit to aggressively pursuing these popular policies. But he runs.
To say - because he won't discuss the issue means he supports it - is the liberal way out. You're insinuating he supports it because he's tried to make it a NON-issue.
Same thing. If he won't work to change the status quo, and he won't, then he may as well support it.
And ... do you know for a fact that he will or will not make it an issue?? NO, YOU DON'T
YES I DO!!! I was not born yesterday, CyberAnt. If he is now assuring the "moderates" that he will do nothing about abortion as the governor of that state, then he will do just that. He will not tackle the abortion issue for one of two reasons. Either he does not care about the issue, or he is a coward who does not wish to take the political risk. Either way, he is useless to those of us who want to stop abortion. And there are plenty of non-restrictive policies that could be put in place right now, by either the state or federal governments, that would break the back of the abortion culture. That's all I ever ask for. I'm not asking for a total abortion ban tomorrow, I simply want the government actively and aggressively discouraging abortion for now. That's all. If that makes me an unreasonable extremist, then it's time for me to run naked through my neighborhood screaming at the top of my lungs.
Respectfully,
The Evil One
I just don't understand why you don't understand this.
That's not a "strategy", it's the truth. Are you familiar with our system of government and the recent history of Supreme Court decisions relating to the issue of abortion?
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.