The Twisted Logic Behind Wilson’s Pledge

There is no easy way to explain breaking your word, but Gov. Pete Wilson did about as well as anybody could, given the constraints of his convoluted rationalizing.

Wilson held his first Capitol news conference in three months Monday--that’s about par for this governor--and for the first time while in California answered questions about why he is running for President after repeatedly pledging not to.

With a straight face and an air of conviction, the governor said, in part:

* It’s the responsibility of California voters to decide whether he should break or keep his promise.

* They’ll want him to break it because they’ve “suffered needless hardship” under President Clinton.

* But his first priority will be governing the state, not running all-out for President.

Looking at the first spin, it really is tortured logic to maintain that it’s up to the voters--not him--to decide whether he should break his contract with California to forgo a 1996 presidential race and serve a full term as governor. Obviously, Wilson already has decided to shuck his pledge. He’s running.

“That’s specious,” Wilson told reporters. “They (voters) are the ones who have the decision.” They will render it, he says, in the March primary and “if good fortune is with me,” again in November.

But you’ve already decided, he was reminded. “Well, I have made the decision to offer them (voters) the opportunity to make the choice. That’s right.”

You ‘ re breaking your promise. Why? “Well, you can characterize it that way if you like, but what I am saying . . .”

It was useless. On this, there seems to be little sense of personal responsibility.

*

Wilson also is in denial on the possibility of turning over the governor’s office to a Democrat, Lt. Gov. Gray Davis. He refuses to entertain any notion that a ballot initiative he has orchestrated--to zap the lieutenant governor and require a special election to fill a gubernatorial vacancy--will not be accepted by voters.

“I have never, ever seen the people of this state turn down the opportunity to create for themselves the opportunity to vote on anything,” Wilson said.

End of discussion. Republicans just should not worry about his leaving the governorship to a Democrat. Ignore early polls that show voters closely divided on the initiative.

Also ignore polls that show him running poorly in GOP primaries, including California’s, and trailing Clinton in this state (51%-42% in a recent Times survey). “I change polls,” he noted.

Californians will rebel against “hardships suffered needlessly” under a “hostile” Clinton Administration, he asserted. “They will understand that I would be a much more sympathetic President for Californians . . . notwithstanding all (Clinton’s) rhetoric about ‘feeling our pain.’ ”

Wilson accused Clinton of reacting slowly to illegal immigration and overzealously administering the Clean Air and Endangered Species acts. Aides later added deep military cuts to the complaint list.

But Clinton probably has been a better President for California than his Republican predecessor. George Bush did nothing about illegal immigration and made little effort to reimburse California for its soaring costs. Nor did Wilson complain much about it then. Clinton is doubling the number of border agents and kicking in more money for imprisoning illegal immigrant felons.

There also are new trade agreements, including NAFTA, that will help California. And don’t forget $11.5 billion in earthquake relief.

“Needless hardship” may be a stretch.

*

But the most twisted spin is Wilson’s pledge to “do my job here. That is my first responsibility.”

He’ll be a full-time governor for at least two more years, he says. Therefore, the decision for Californians is “whether I am of greater value to them as a governor for two more years (in 1997-98, or) as a Californian in the White House for four years or for eight.”

Baloney. For agenda purposes, we’re really talking about scrapping all four years of the second term. Running for President, he’ll be part time at best.

Susan Estrich, who managed Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis’ 1988 presidential race, says: “You have to decide whether you’re going to run for President or be governor. And if you try to do both, you’re bound to fail at both. . . . The notion that he’s going to achieve a California legislative agenda while talking dairy with farmers in Iowa is fantasy.”

She adds, “If you run for President as a sitting governor and lose, you’re in deep trouble in your home state. Either he’s going to be President or he’s going to have everybody in California mad at him.”

Wilson already has made a lot of Californians mad, so he has just one option: Run for his political life.