Citizen Kate: a Run Against the Conventional Wisdom : Politics: Kate Squires’ long-shot Senate bid struggles to be heard over the volume of big-money campaigns.

Deep in America’s imagination there exists an ideal politician.

He is an ordinary citizen, like the one Jimmy Stewart played in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” When he volunteers to serve, he is unsullied by sleaze and untainted by self-interest. He knows nothing about politics. But, as in “Dave”--the central character of the 1993 movie about an average Joe who fills in for the President--his ignorance only makes him more effective as he relies on common sense to get things done.

This year in California, Kate Squires and dozens of other unknowns are trying to live out this fantasy. Squires, a 35-year-old Riverside County lawyer and businesswoman, is making an earnest bid to take on U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Squires has little money, no political experience, and campaign experts say she has absolutely no chance of winning her first race for office.

This angers Squires, who is particularly frustrated that newspapers give her so little attention. Hardly a week goes by without her better-financed Republican opponents--Rep. Michael Huffington and former Rep. William E. Dannemeyer--getting a mention, she notes. If only she could get the coverage, she believes she could be a contender.

For Squires and other amateur candidates, the difficulty of getting anyone to listen affirms an abiding cynicism about the corruption of money in politics and the failure of the media to do anything about it. For many who study American government, however, the obstacles in Squires’ path are evidence that democracy is working just about as it should.

For better or worse, the story of Squires’ struggle to run for office tells much about the realities of politics in California today.

*

Rod Squires admits he was caught off guard when his wife revealed her political aspirations in September.

“I wasn’t surprised about her running for office--she’s always been very achievement-oriented,” said Rod, who owns a wholesale and retail distribution company in Riverside. “But this office in particular was a surprise.”

After all, Kate Squires had never held a local seat. Rod never doubted her skills--”I know Kate’s debating abilities, and they’re far superior to Dannemeyer’s or Huffington’s,” he said.

But the U.S. Senate seemed like a big leap until the fledgling candidate revealed the strategy that would become the central tenet of her campaign.

Only a Republican woman can beat Feinstein, she told her husband. Huffington had personal wealth, Dannemeyer had a conservative track record, but Squires believed she alone had what it would take to prevail: femininity.

“Feinstein’s voting record is very liberal down the line, but she gets up there and uses her gender like a smoke screen,” said the self-described former feminist, whose platform is a compendium of far-right positions ranging from prayer in schools to cutting welfare and ending federally funded abortions. “If we can remove that, neutralize her radical feminism and call her on her ‘sisterhood’ . . . people will start to ask about the issues.”

The strategy appealed to Rod. So did the untraditional way his wife planned to carry it out. In a state as large and diverse as this one, where expensive broadcast advertising is considered essential to reach millions of voters, she had decided to try to talk to them directly.

“Her idea of stumping the state instead of just appealing to the couch potatoes--I knew she could win people over,” he said proudly, predicting that Squires’ “back to basics” approach would make victory even sweeter. “It would definitely reaffirm in people the idea that just because you’ve got the biggest bucks, you don’t get to win. That’s what I get excited about--that possibility.”

The notion is romantic. Experts say it is also unrealistic. Consider this: to introduce herself to California’s electorate without the help of paid advertising, Squires would have to shake 39,726 hands every day for a year.

“This isn’t Iowa. This isn’t North Dakota. This is California--15 million voters. It’s necessarily politics that’s conducted by the media and by direct mail, politics that requires large amounts of money,” said UC Berkeley political science professor Bruce Cain.

“I don’t want to put down the feeling of ill ease that people have about a system that is so electronically centered and money-centered. It is unfortunate,” Cain said. “But I don’t know what the alternative is in a state of 32 million people. . . . No matter how many teas (Squires) goes to, she’s not going to meet even a fraction of the voters she needs to meet.”

But Squires, a sharp-tongued debater who owns a company that prepares students for law school, is not easily discouraged. While Huffington has taken to the airwaves, spending more than $1 million of an estimated $15-million campaign budget, she has continued to try to connect, one on one, with individual voters.

“I’m sorry--money is not my god,” she told five Riverside County supporters over coffee one recent morning. “We have been led to believe that the only way to win a state this large is with money. But I have not bought into that conventional wisdom. I really believe it discounts what our democratic process is all about.

“Just keep spreading the word,” she implored. “Isn’t it more valuable to have your friend say, ‘Vote for Kate,’ than to see a paid-for-TV ad? . . . Let’s stop worshiping the money god. Let’s blow them away with people power.”

*

At last count, contributions to Squires’ campaign totaled about $20,000. She has no paid staff and often drives herself around the state in a borrowed van. She jokes that because of her grueling schedule and minimal budget, running for the Senate keeps her slimmer than dieting.

“We work for food,” Squires says of her Senate-on-a-shoestring campaign. “We’re not rich, but . . . we’re committed.”

Since she hit the campaign trail six months ago, the Corona resident has worn her relative poverty like a badge of honor. She believes that good ideas are all a candidate truly needs. Money and political experience may seem essential to political insiders, she says, but she would prefer to win the June 7 Republican primary without them.

“What experience are you talking about? If it is the experience of having been in D.C. in the Congress for 12 or 15 years, I don’t want it,” said Squires, whose campaign slogan reads: “Straight Talk and Simple Truth!” “I don’t want to be infringed. I don’t want to be sold out. I don’t want to be tainted.”

Experts say that in her attempt to avoid taint, Squires has denied herself an essential education. Although many people believe that “any idiot in the phone book can do better than the bozos in Sacramento,” Cain of UC Berkeley says it takes know-how to govern well.

“A lot of political scientists, including myself, believe that by the time you get to the highest level of government, there are enormously complicated issues that do require some level of expertise,” Cain said. “We are very worried about the notion that anybody could run government. That just isn’t true.”

Undeniably, experience is not a prerequisite for aspiring politicians. Personal wealth, like Huffington’s, can help propel an unknown into office. If you are an entertainer-turned-politician like Ronald Reagan or Sonny Bono, celebrity can provide a leg up. Or sometimes a single dramatic incident can boost one’s political capital. Former U.S. Sen. S. I. Hayakawa was catapulted into politics after television cameras recorded his attempts to stop a student uprising at San Francisco State University, where he was president.

For most people, however, becoming a serious candidate means paying political dues.

“There are leagues in politics. Senators have been congressmen, congressmen have been mayors. There’s no better way (to become a viable candidate) than to go through the chairs,” said pollster Mervin Field. “This idea that ‘I’m a citizen politician and it’s my turn to serve’--that’s fine, but . . . candidates have to demonstrate that they’re capable.”

Here again, money plays a role. Even political veterans who lament that fund-raising has become too big a part of the electoral process say that when taking the measure of a candidate--particularly a first-timer--money cannot be ignored. Like it or not, a fat campaign war chest is often the best proof that an untested candidate inspires confidence.

“Somebody like Kate Squires has got to prove that people will support her, and one way to support her is to put up money,” Field said.

Ken Khachigian, a Republican political consultant who is an adviser to Huffington’s campaign, said Squires would make a great candidate for the state Legislature or Congress. But she has taken on too much by running for statewide office first time out, he said, and she should not blame the system for her own bad decision.

“Abe Lincoln ran for local office. George Washington was a general. Franklin Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy and then governor of New York. Nixon came up through Congress,” Khachigian said. “The system is frustrating--I hate the money-raising--but it usually does sort out people who do not display extraordinary leadership qualities.”

*

Not everyone thinks Squires is misguided. Caltech political science professor Rod Kiewiet has published a paper about people like Squires, who are the basis for what he calls “the rational turkey theory.” In short, the theory says there is logic to a weak candidate running against a formidable opponent because the field is usually less crowded. Then, if the formidable opponent gets struck by lightning, the turkey can step into the void.

“It’s a long shot, but it’s not a zero shot,” said Kiewiet, adding that America’s deep-rooted fondness for the underdog can aid such candidates as well. “People do love to see major upsets. Think of the New York Jets in 1969. Every so often some pure chump like Buster Douglas will beat a champion like Mike Tyson.”

For the record, Squires sees herself as neither a turkey nor a chump. Instead, she likens herself to a horse--a Trojan horse.

“We are like the Trojan horse going into Dianne Feinstein’s camp,” she likes to say, explaining that as a conservative candidate in a woman’s body, she believes she can “strike at the heart” of Feinstein’s voters.

Squires’ populist rhetoric has touched some people. Kathy Turner, a 31-year-old businesswoman and mother of three who is active in the Riverside County Young Republicans chapter, said she is supporting Squires because of her “trickle-up” campaign style.

“We can no longer rely on the high-end donors, the media. We have to start in the community,” said Turner, who admires Squires for trying to do that. “She’s a go-getter. If she works this hard in the Senate, we can get a lot of things accomplished.”

Still, there is no evidence that Squires has stolen any of Feinstein’s support. A Field Poll conducted in January simulated the general election, pairing Feinstein first against Dannemeyer, then Huffington, then Squires. In each pairing, Feinstein’s numbers stayed nearly constant--53% or 54% of registered voters said they would vote for her.

In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, Republicans indicated that none of their party’s participants is particularly well known. If the Republican primary were held today, 22% said they would vote for Dannemeyer, 13% for Huffington and 7% for Squires. A whopping 58% was undecided.

Squires is hardly the first to try to beat the odds. And a handful have won. In 1990, Paul Wellstone, a political science professor, defeated U.S. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.), a well-financed, two-term incumbent.

But Californians outnumber Minnesotans seven to one. Had Wellstone run in the Golden State instead of the Gopher State, experts say he would not have fared as well. Just ask Jim Trinity.

In 1992, Trinity, a retired Glendale dentist and first-time candidate, ran unsuccessfully for the same U.S. Senate seat that Squires hopes to occupy. Like Squires, Trinity counted Dannemeyer among his challengers for the Republican nomination (incumbent John Seymour and a long shot named Bill Allen were the other two). Had he been successful, Trinity would have faced the same Democrat in the general election: Feinstein.

Trinity, like Squires, was short on cash--he raised only about $15,000 (supplemented by $200,000 of his own money). And like Squires, Trinity blamed his lack of renown largely on the media.

“It is a Catch-22,” he said during the campaign. “If you are not written up, you don’t make the polls. If you are not in the polls, you are not going to be written about. You have to have a hell of a lot of perseverance.”

Squires is not a quitter. “I’m convinced people will make a difference. I’m standing firm on that rock,” Squires says optimistically, explaining how she has focused on cultivating as many Republican activists as she can--”the movers and shakers,” she says, “that are going to get out there and penetrate. “

Statewide, Squires boasts of what she calls a “huge” grass-roots organization of about 100 such penetrating souls. She seems genuinely hopeful that they will get her message out. But so far, Squires has gotten more attention for fainting than for anything else.

It happened at the California Republican Party convention in February, when Squires appeared on a meet-the-candidates panel. Midway through a fiery speech in which she railed against taxes, welfare and the endangered species list, Squires grew pale and fell to the floor.

Dannemeyer ran to her aid, with Huffington right behind him. A doctor jumped on stage and someone in the crowd began reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Minutes later, when Squires returned to the microphone, the little-known contender seemed determined to turn an embarrassing moment into a valuable one.

“I want to apologize . . . because that’s not what you wanted in a United States Senate candidate,” she said. Then, emboldened by a roar of applause, she added: “Or maybe it is. Maybe that’s a good way to get the floor to pay attention.”

Defying the Odds?

It happens every election year: a handful of average citizens set out to fix what’s broken in government. Often low on funds, short on name recognition and lacking in political experience, these candidates are powered mostly by their own earnestness. Here is a list of some of the lesser-known contenders who have qualified to appear on the June 7 primary ballot.

FOR GOVERNOR

* Democrats running against state Treasurer Kathleen Brown, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and state Sen. Tom Hayden: Mark Calney, Los Angeles resident; Charles (Chuck) Pineda Jr., Sacramento criminal justice administrator; Jonathan Trip, Burbank business consultant.

* Republicans running against Gov. Pete Wilson: Louis D’Arrigo, Aptos farmer/contractor; Jim Hart, San Diego resident; Ron K. Unz, Palo Alto high-technology entrepreneur/businessman.

* American Independent Party: Jerome (Jerry) McCready, Castroville businessman

* Green Party: John Lewallen, Ukiah businessman; James Ogle, Monterey artist; John T. Selawsky, Berkeley teacher/writer.

* Libertarian Party: Richard Rider, San Diego stockbroker/financial planner.

* Peace & Freedom Party: Gloria Estela La Riva, San Francisco political organizer/printer.

FOR U.S. SENATE

* Democrats running against U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein: Ted J. Andromidas, Los Angeles sales consultant; Daniel Davy O’Dowd, Santa Barbara entrepreneur.

* Republicans running against Rep. Michael Huffington (R-Santa Barbara) and former Congressman William E. Dannemeyer: John M. Brown, Stockton salesman; Wolf G. Dalichau, Los Angeles baker; Kate Squires, Corona business owner and lawyer.

* American Independent Party: Paul Meeuwenberg, Los Angeles marketing consultant.

* Green Party: Barbara Blong, San Francisco educator; Kent W. Smith, Sacramento educator/business consultant.

* Libertarian Party: Richard Benjamin Boddie, Huntington Beach public speaker.

* Peace & Freedom Party: Elizabeth Cervantes Barron, San Jose special education teacher; Larry D. Hampshire, Rancho Santa Fe poet.

Source: California Secretary of State Elections Division