Golden State GOP Primary: Bullion vs. Fool's Gold
By Mike Bayham
February 28, 2002

On Tuesday California Republicans will choose the GOP standard bearer in the governor's election against Democratic incumbent Gray Davis.  Because California has the highest number of electoral votes of any state, political pundits often proclaim whomever the state executive is in Sacramento is a potential president.

Ironically of the three presidents from California, only Ronald Reagan served as governor.  Nixon, who served as a Congressman and US Senator, was a resident of New York when he won in 1968, though he had unsuccessfully campaigned for the position two years after losing the presidency to Jack Kennedy. Herbert Hoover held no elected office and was a cabinet secretary when he won the presidency.

Since Reagan two California governors have run for the White House with neither having any success.  Republican Pete Wilson was drawing more debt into his campaign than support and dropped out of the 1996 presidential primaries before the first ballot was cast  And then there is three time aspirant Jerry Brown, a candidate many stalwart Democrats would like to forget.

Often dismissed as a flake by both parties, Brown should receive some recognition for being the only California governor since Reagan to win an elected office (mayor of Oakland) after leaving Sacramento.

History lessons aside, perception is reality in politics and the parties and partisans have put a lot of resources and emphasis on the governor's election in California. Gray Davis is considered vulnerable because of the past summer's energy crisis in California and because he is as exciting as his first name implies.

Conservative Republicans in California and across the nation, having been burned by the "country club" faction of the GOP in the New Jersey governor's race, have rallied to the side of the new "right" knight in shining armor, William Simon.

Challenging Simon for the nomination are former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and Secretary of State Bill Jones.  Jones most memorable national political moment came when he defected from the Bush camp in the presidential primaries and endorsed John McCain's maverick bid.  Though he is the only statewide elected Republican official in California, Jones' campaign is on the rocks and is no longer considered a credible candidate making the battle for the Republican nomination a virtual duel between Riordan and Simon.  

I would even say that the ideological gulf between these two prominent Republicans is even greater than the one that separated Bret Schundler and Bob Franks in their Garden State factional clash.

Riordan was elected mayor of Los Angeles in 1993, which is an impressive accomplishment for a Republican, though all of the pr and adulation that year went to Rudy Giuliani, who has actively campaigned for Simon.  Simon is a "24 carat" conservative while Riordan is only "gold" on the outside.  In fact, Riordan is what conservative philosophical purists would refer to as a RINO, "Republican In Name Only."  

Riordan's positions on abortion, gay rights and other social issues could be found in the Democratic platform and his lack of a commitment to a conservative fiscal policy or the party in general makes one wonder why he has an "R" by his name at all.  

Many of his supporters claim that Riordan would make the ideal candidate to face Davis in November because many Californians are socially liberal.  I think it would be more accurate to say that most voters probably could not differentiate Davis from Riordan, giving the former an electoral advantage in ethnic block voting and urban machine support.  Conversely Riordan would undoubtedly be handicapped by his liberal views in which he would have a hard time giving Republican voters a compelling reason to work for his candidacy.

Riordan had a commanding lead in Republican polls for most of the campaign until the late surge in support for Simon had turned the race into a deadheat.  The advantage Simon has is one most conservatives posses in the primaries: a solid  base of support that are chronic voters.

Most liberals will even concede this point though they are quick to hypothesize that by placating the right, Republican candidates doom themselves in the general election.  The truth of the matter is that a conservative can win in almost any state.  Just ask Ronald Reagan who carried Massachusetts twice though the Gipper is not unique on this count.  Outspoken conservatives have enjoyed success in gubernatorial and senatorial elections across the nation, even in the most liberal of states.

What cripples many Republican candidates is when they believe the hype of the media and think it is necessary to run to the center or left of center in the general election.  When they do this, "faux" conservatives end up running away from the platform they ran on in the primaries, thus depressing their own vote turnout.  Other factors in Republican defeats include lack of killer instinct by the candidates (see John Ashcroft), thin talent in GOP consulting ranks (see the incredible shrinking Republican Congress), and outright treachery (see the New Jersey GOP).  Being pro-life or pro-second amendment is rarely a reason why Republicans have lost elections on a statewide basis anywhere.

Conservatives see a golden opportunity to not only reclaim the Republican mantle in California, but to also take back the governor's mansion.  Democrats always triumph when the voters have trouble discerning between the two parties.  With Simon as the party nominee, the voters at a minimum will have a real choice in the November election and at best, a capable governor.