Wilson’s Ego Betrays the Voters’ Trust : His presidential ambitions could provoke an attack on our state Constitution.

I don’t want Pete Wilson to run for the office of the presidency in 1996 because he said he wouldn’t. It’s that simple.

Until last November, while Wilson was running for reelection as governor, he pledged to fulfill a full term should he win. Most Californians took him at his word. I did; I campaigned for him. We now discover that we made a serious error in judgment in assuming that he would keep his word.

I have known and have respected Pete Wilson for decades. I have seen him at his best, and his best is worthy of admiration. There have been some issues on which conservatives have supported him and some issues on which we have opposed him, but now there is only one issue: taking him at his word. This is not Pete Wilson at his best.

This, of course, is not the first time a political figure has not kept his or her pre-election word, but it should be the last. How can young people admire and want to emulate those elected to public office when emulating them would mean finding nothing wrong in making one pledge before an election and then disregarding the pledge after the election is won, so as to serve a higher ambition?

Wilson says he feels a duty to consider a run for the presidency. Why? Those Republicans who have already announced their intention to enter the presidential race have a wide spectrum of political agendas. What ideas of Pete Wilson are not being represented within the current field of presidential aspirants? Why doesn’t he endorse the candidate who best represents his views?

What kind of duty does Wilson feel necessary to observe? If he doesn’t have the duty to keep his word, how can we regard his current and future “duties” seriously? There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who believe that they should be President of the United States. I would consider the first criterion for such office to be a person who honors those things publicly promised to the voters.

Now there is a new element that has entered his possible candidacy. There is a movement afoot to put on the California ballot a proposition calling for a special election if there’s a vacancy in the governor’s office, rather than observing the current law, which orders the lieutenant governor to fill that void. In other words, if Pete Wilson becomes President, instead of Lt. Gov. Gray Davis (a Democrat) automatically becoming governor, there would be a special election for the governor’s office. I campaigned against Davis, but taking away his constitutional role is a dirty trick.

When the people of California voted last November, they knew that the lieutenant governor’s prime duty is to take over the governor’s responsibilities if that office becomes vacant. The people made a decision for a Republican, Pete Wilson, to be governor of the state and a Democrat, Gray Davis, to be lieutenant governor. If the people of California want to change our state Constitution (and I do) so that in the future our elections have a party ticket inclusive of both offices, as we do for President and vice president, we should wait to put that proposition on the ballot during an election cycle in which the office of lieutenant governor is on the ballot, rather than vote on that proposition mid-term. Wilson’s political ambition should not disrupt our entire process and invoke a change in the state Constitution. I hope that he speaks out against such a ballot initiative unless, at its earliest, it would take effect after the next gubernatorial election in l998.

Principles and ambitions often conflict in everyone’s life, and those conflicts become public knowledge in political life. It is good that they do. A candidate’s choice between principle and ambition can serve as a clear indicator of the kind of national leadership that can be expected by the people.

It is my hope and belief that one day the people of this nation, and of every state within the nation, will be able to take candidates at their word because the candidates will be worthy of such trust. Sadly, in California, this is not the day.