Huffington’s Hour for More Than Money

“He’s toast,” says a GOP strategist, referring to Rep. Mike Huffington. Done. Finished.

“He hasn’t got the style or the presence to turn it around. Stylistically, he’s a pussycat.”

This savvy political veteran, who understandably does not want to be identified, was speculating about voter reaction to the disclosure that Huffington employed an illegal immigrant for a little more than four years to care for his two children. The Senate candidate briefly denied it, then fessed up after learning The Times was breaking the story the next morning.

That was last Thursday--one week after Huffington had created his petard by endorsing Proposition 187, which would bar illegal aliens from most public services and require school and health officials to turn in suspects. The GOP candidate complained about “the weakness of our political leaders to enforce the immigration laws.”

After the nanny story broke, Huffington said it actually was his wife who had hired the illegal immigrant, although he assumed full responsibility. “We have made a mistake,” he said. “(But) who among us has not broken the law? Who among us has not rolled through a stop sign? . . . “

Actually, it was more than just “a” mistake. Huffington also admitted not paying some taxes for the nanny. And two other illegal immigrants reportedly were hired temporarily by his wife, Arianna Huffington.

*

Huffington is dead politically, the Republican strategist theorizes, because he never had much going for him in California anyway. He’s newly arrived from Texas with an oil fortune created by his father. Here, he has no reservoir of goodwill. It’s not like Massachusetts voters easing up on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for old times’ sake.

There’s also no foundation of party support. Huffington is welcomed by the GOP Establishment because he’s willing to spend his own millions and not compete with other candidates for campaign contributions. He brought his own food and drink to the party. By Election Day, it’s estimated, he will have written personal checks in the astronomical range of $30 million.

There’s a popular bumper strip being circulated among volunteers for Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “Make him spend it all, Dianne.”

That can’t happen. Huffington’s too rich. Besides, there’s the law of diminishing returns. “He’s maxed out,” says the GOP guru. “He can’t spend any more and get much more out of it.”

Most of Huffington’s spending has been for negative TV ads aimed at tearing down Feinstein. That much has worked. Her favorability rating has plunged from 63% in March to 41% a week ago, based on Times polling. But Huffington’s own favorability rating is even worse, a paltry 27%. He hasn’t run enough positive ads to build up his popularity, so he’s particularly vulnerable to nannygate.

Now, he’ll try to explain it in a new TV ad. As late as Friday, Huffington’s advisers had hoped this would all blow over by today. The strategy was to ignore the nanny and change the subject. No chance.

Feinstein pounced immediately with big buys of radio and TV spots. “Politician Michael Huffington talks tough about illegal immigrants, but now Huffington admits that for years he employed an illegal immigrant,” her ads say. “Now we Californians are finally beginning to know Congressman Huffington--the Texas oil millionaire Californians just can’t trust.”

Hypocrisy, mistrust and carpetbagging all wrapped neatly into one 30-second ad.

*

Everything the sage strategist says makes sense. Yet, Huffington trailed Feinstein by only three percentage points in Times polling of likely voters just before they learned of the nanny. And he had some momentum.

Another GOP operative, veteran consultant Sal Russo, insists that although Huffington has been embarrassed, he should survive nannygate. “This is part of life in California, where two-income families depend on household services and garden help from people of dubious immigration status,” he reasons.

But few Californians who hire illegal immigrants likely would mount a platform, as Huffington did, and hail Proposition 187 as “the first step toward finally enforcing our immigration laws.”

Huffington wouldn’t have either if he’d told his advisers about the undocumented nanny. At the least, he would have simultaneously endorsed 187 and disclosed her himself, rationalizing that this particular illegal immigrant was acceptable because she never used public services. A preemptive strike.

But “they (candidates) never tell ya the truth,” says the anonymous strategist.

With Huffington, chalk it up to lack of political experience. That’s something even his money can’t buy.