The Jury Talks Back

11/28/2008

Open thread: Republicans for Governor?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Kevin Murphy @ 9:58 am

Who’s the best Republican candidate to replace Arnold? Why? (Democrats feel free to point out the defects.)

32 Comments

  1. Well, over at Hugh’s blog, he’s touting Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner.
    Time will tell.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 10:05 am

  2. For Governor, Curt Pringle. Didn’t care much for his leadership of the Assembly during the 95-96 circus, but he has been an effective Mayor of Anaheim.

    Comment by Sean P — 11/28/2008 @ 12:44 pm

  3. Here’s a wild card submitted just for fun: Mike Gin, the mayor of Redondo Beach. What would the Dems do if we follow Arnie with a gay Asian Republican? My assumption is that he is pretty moderate to liberal on social issues, but my impression of the job he has done is that he has been very responsible from a fiscal standpoint. Best of all, he is the sort of executive who does his job without having to call attention to himself at every step of the way, unlike a certain big city mayor just up the freeway from him.

    Comment by JVW — 11/28/2008 @ 2:32 pm

  4. Since there is point zero zero zero zero one shot at winning, I would go with a guy like John Campbell who would articulate the conservative ideology well, with good humor and class. He would give the GOP an underpinning for the eventual rebound.

    Comment by Ed — 11/28/2008 @ 3:17 pm

  5. Comment by Ed — 11/28/2008 @ 3:17 pm

    Except, he would lose his seat in Congress, where he can do more good (especially since he has about zero state-wide name recognition and no mega-bucks pocket to overcome that deficiency).

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 5:33 pm

  6. If there were a remote possibility of a Republican and solid conservative winning Cali, I would vote Tom McClintock (4th Cong. District). He is the only pol who has consistently opposed the onslaught of outrageous spending in our state…which may be precisely why he lost to Arnold in 2003. Anyone against the ridiculous Prop1A high speed rail bond has my vote.

    A girl can dream.

    Comment by Dana — 11/28/2008 @ 7:04 pm

  7. Tom McClintock would have been an excellent Governor to stand up to the idiots running the Legislature.
    He just didn’t have the name recognition, nor the money to combat that lack of recognition.

    For 2010, we need someone with brains, who speaks well, has a good business reputation, and is not afraid of mixing it up, to go against whatever left-wing stooge for the PE unions the Dems nominate.
    I wish I knew more about both Poizner and Whitman, especially their speaking abilities.

    Along with a good candidate for Governor, we also need somebody first-rate to take on Boxer for the Senate.
    I see that Chuck DeVore has announced, but I don’t think he has the rep to do it.
    My dream candidate would be to go back to Academia again (as we did with Hayakawa back in the 60′s),
    and convince Victor Davis Hansen to run (does anyone know what his party registration is?).
    Author, Academic, and multi-generation farmer from the heartland of CA.
    I would support him even if he’s a Dem (and change my party registration, to boot) –
    anything to get rid of Barbara Bouncer!

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 7:51 pm

  8. Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 7:51 pm

    AD, I’ve been a huge supporter of Devore’s and have had several great conversations with him re Sacramento and the state of our state. What a sharp guy who knows in order to beat the seriously entrenched Boxer will really be the ultimate in pushing the big rock uphill. I really hope he can do it.

    Comment by Dana — 11/28/2008 @ 9:20 pm

  9. Dana…
    I think DeVore has done well in the Legislature, but just don’t believe he has the star-power to take down an incumbent Senator, especially considering the demographics of the State as they currently exist.
    Of course, a lot can change in two years.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 10:04 pm

  10. What ever happened to Matt Fong, the fellow who challenged Barbara Boxer for her seat in (I think) 1998? He ran a pretty decent campaign, but got snowed under by the anti-impeachment and pro-Gray Davis Democrat vote that year. He was a fairly young guy at the time (under 50 as I recall), so he should still be able to contribute.

    Comment by JVW — 11/28/2008 @ 10:07 pm

  11. AD (#7, 7:51 pm), I like VDH as much as anyone, but let’s face it: anyone with a paper trail as long as he has will be ripe pickings for the left-wing smear machine. Didn’t VDH coin the term “Mexifornia”? Don’t tell me the local and national media wouldn’t be accusing him of racism all throughout the campaign.

    Comment by JVW — 11/28/2008 @ 10:30 pm

  12. Assuming McClintock wins his congressional seat (it still hasn’t been called), I doubt he’d just give it up on an iffy try for governor. For any Republican to win, they’d have to be more like Arnold than not. I think that strong opposition to abortion is a permanent showstopper in California, which limits the field greatly.

    I don’t know about “showing the flag” — if I wanted to vote for losers, I’d vote Libertarian.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/29/2008 @ 12:33 am

  13. No Republican should run. They should stand back and let California implode under Democrat “leadership.”

    Comment by Perfect Sense — 11/29/2008 @ 5:14 am

  14. Comment by JVW — 11/28/2008 @ 10:30 pm
    In fact, “Mexifornia” is the title of his book that is a fair, historic look at the problems of immigration in California.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/29/2008 @ 9:36 am

  15. “They should stand back and let California implode under Democrat “leadership.”

    As if we already haven’t been doing just that???

    Comment by Dana — 11/29/2008 @ 10:12 am

  16. In fact, “Mexifornia” is the title of his book that is a fair, historic look at the problems of immigration in California.

    Yep, I am familiar enough with his writing to know that he makes reasonable arguments, but let’s face it: Dems aren’t going to tell people to read his writing and draw their own conclusions; they are going to cherry-pick phrases and passages that sound inflammatory (including the Mexifornia title) and cry “racism!” Are you going to bet that the electorate of this state will take the time to learn about VDH on their own, or will they just run with what the liberal elite tells them?

    Comment by JVW — 11/29/2008 @ 12:26 pm

  17. They should stand back and let California implode under Democrat “leadership.”

    Woah, dude, some of us have to live here in the meantime.

    Comment by JVW — 11/29/2008 @ 12:27 pm

  18. JVW,

    I’m not knowledgeable about California election matters but here are my thoughts from the outside looking in:

    I agree conservatives like VDH have no chance at getting elected to state-wide office — primarily because of his direct approach to controverial topics – but that also illustrates why no real conservative could get elected in California in today’s world. Conservatives have no choice but to run based on Democratic issues given the California electorate’s PC world-view. The only “acceptable” conservatives are Democrat-lites with charisma.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/29/2008 @ 3:31 pm

  19. Yep. Just like a California Democrat like Barbara Boxer would have no chance for statewide office in Texas. You have to play in the home team’s ballpark.

    Comment by JVW — 11/29/2008 @ 3:38 pm

  20. One of the big problems Republicans have in California is that there is a sizable chunk of people who (a) are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues and who (b) think the social issues are more important.

    The Republicans just *cannot* reach this group. VDH would send them screaming.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/29/2008 @ 10:13 pm

  21. Comment by aphrael — 11/29/2008 @ 10:13 pm

    It is the cognitive dissonance of those so-called social libs/econ conservatives that needs to be attacked head-on to bring rationality back into the political debate.
    For far too long, they have been allowed to hide behind their nurtured beliefs that to be considered a political conservative was on par with being a Neanderthal.
    Their inability to take a reasoned political position is what has propelled this State into its’ current morass; and, if it continues, foretells a disaster not seen on a state level since the Great Depression (for those who live in the Bay-Area, all you have to do is follow the situation in Vallejo to see what the State as a whole is looking forward to).

    One problem a new Governor is going to have to confront is what to do about the “domestic out-migration” numbers that have been endemic since the Grey Davis days.
    CA can not afford to lose productive, tax-paying citizens at the rates that prevail.
    We are slowly becoming a state of tax-users, with a shrinking, if not disappearing, base of tax-payers.
    When the last tax-payer leaves, he won’t have to turn out the lights, someone will already have stolen the copper wires.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 8:51 am

  22. More immediately is the state fiscal crisis which is metastasizing.

    In many ways the state is facing the same crisis as GM: employee featherbedding, pit-bull unions, complaisant management with short-term thinking, incredible medical costs and underfunded and extravagant pension plans.

    Obviously the state needs to bring into line its employment costs, yet it faces contracts that require more of the same, and a management structure that is largely elected by the unions.

    Unlike GM, though, they have a monopoly and can just crank up the prices (taxes) and force us to pay. Can a Republican candidate make this point strongly enough to focus the voters on the economic issues and not the social ones?

    Or is bankruptcy the only answer?

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/30/2008 @ 10:48 am

  23. I agree the California electorate seems to rank social issues ahead of fiscal concerns – on both sides – although the looming financial problems may change that. Like Reid in Nevada, I think Nancy Pelosi will do everything she can to make federal monies available to bail out California and that’s a shame, because it will reinforce the decisions and leadership that led to the economic problems. I’d rather see businesses and taxpayers move away and force profligate states to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 11:58 am

  24. Conservatives have no choice but to run based on Democratic issues given the California electorate’s PC world-view. The only “acceptable” conservatives are Democrat-lites with charisma.

    This is the central mistake the GOP made in the last election. McCain was as centrist a guy as exists within the GOP, and he got throttled because he would not offer a solid foundation that the center-right could count on. His bailout bill stunt sealed his fate.

    It is vital that the GOP understand that the coming budget catastrophes will present the party an historic opportunity to change the paradigm utterly. It must present the generational/systemic government spending as fatal, and it must present an alternative of responsibility. The only chance the people of California have is to break the AFSCME and the teachers’ unions. The only way this happens is with a resolute cadre of conservative leaders.

    Comment by Ed — 11/30/2008 @ 12:07 pm

  25. Another Drew: the thing is that the Republicans *also* put social issues first; they’d rather lose on social issues than win on economic issues by selecting candidates who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

    An economically conservative socially liberal candidate would win a general election in a landslide. But neither party will select one in the primary.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 5:43 pm

  26. aphrael,

    Libertarians embrace a socially liberal-economically conservative platform, and we are seeing more and more libertarians these days but I don’t think that means conservatives have to be libertarians to win.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 5:58 pm

  27. DRJ: I think in California they basically have to either (a) convince the white libertarian types to vote for them or (b) convince the hispanic family voters to vote for them.

    They don’t at the moment seem to be able to do either.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 5:59 pm

  28. aphrael,

    How could you convince libertarians or Hispanics to vote conservative when social issues trump economic issues with CA voters? The only way to win those voters is to run: (1) an Obama-like conservative leader who can make them believe something other than what his record says he will do, or (2) a conservative in name only.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 6:18 pm

  29. DRJ: if you can’t convince libertarian whites, or hispanics, to vote for you, you lose in California.

    So the question the California Republicans have to ask themselves, I think, is: would victory on fiscal and economic issues be worth surrendering on social issues?

    Or, perhaps another question: how can you incorporate socially conservative hispanics into the Republican tent before their association with California’s Democrats erodes their social conservatism? It might not be too late … but give it another decade and it will be.

    Right now, the Republican party in California is a minority party which can hold on to enough legislative seats to block anything requiring a 2/3 majority requirement, and can manage to get statewide officials elected only if those officials focus on economic issues. This is getting worse with time, rather than getting better.

    Comment by aphrael — 11/30/2008 @ 6:25 pm

  30. If it takes more Arnolds to win in CA, I think I’ll just find another state to live in before this one descends fully into Hell!

    This whole concept of socially liberal/economically conservative is just a load of crap.
    If you are socially liberal, you will support social programs that will break the bank and that are antithetical to your supposed economic conservatism.

    How about we advance political philosophies that aren’t dependent upon the melanin of the voter?
    Perhaps we could educate the average voter about the advantages of a government that doesn’t have the power to push him around; one which is restricted to just those areas that it can, and should, do such as infrastructure?

    It has become more and more appearant that education is an area of responsibility that government truly sucks at as it has abdicated power to the public-employee unions. As some of us have said for over twenty years, the only true way to save education is to institute a voucher system that puts the power of the dollar into the hands of the parents. The more that we have followed the siren-song of the teacher’s unions and ignored vouchers, the worse the ed situation has become in this state.

    Comment by Another Drew — 11/30/2008 @ 6:26 pm

  31. aphrael,

    I disagree that Hispanics are social conservatives (because they are largely Catholic and opposed to abortion) any more than I would describe blacks as social conservatives (because they oppose gay marriage). You’re equating their stance on a single issue with conservatism. Granted you can do that with some single-issue voters but I think those voters are actually quite rare. Further, as this past election demonstrated, single-issue voters can be fickle and will stay home when they don’t think the party embraces their single-issue views.

    I think conservatism in the US has a bleak prognosis in the short term and it won’t resurface until voters become disillusioned with the Democrats. That may take 2-4-8 or more years, and it may never resurface in California.

    Comment by DRJ — 11/30/2008 @ 6:48 pm

  32. If you are socially liberal, you will support social programs that will break the bank and that are antithetical to your supposed economic conservatism.

    Hunh? You’re going to have to connect those dots. You seem to have a really odd definition of “socially liberal.”

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 12/1/2008 @ 8:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.