He’s Rich, but What Else Is He?

Much thinking to do about this Checchi fellow. Less than a month until the primary, and he continues to vex the brain. Just when I want to dismiss him, he floats back into my consciousness and hovers.

It’s not as though Al Checchi is the first good-looking guy with charisma and ambition who, in his first bolt from the chute, decided he was qualified to be elected governor of California. A man named Ronald Reagan fit that bill 32 years ago and proved himself right. But Reagan, besides having name recognition as an actor, had also established himself politically two years earlier at the 1964 Republican National Convention.

Checchi, a Democrat, has established himself by having a lot of money. He’s bought his way into the race with TV advertising. With his kind of money, who needs a track record?

Rather than give most voters who will go to the polls anything to go on--like a record in office--Checchi wants us to trust his ads. Serious voters should be offended by that, and I am. My next logical step, then, should be to disqualify him as anyone I might vote for.

So far, I haven’t.

Unlike some other rich boys who tried to dazzle us (a Mr. Michael Huffington comes readily to mind), I sense there is sizzle in the steak. Checchi doesn’t strike me as an empty suit containing an ego but no soul.

But it is just a sense. I can’t really be sure. If he were running for City Council, no problem in taking a flier on him.

But governor of California?

I took my dilemma to Howard Adler, a longtime Orange County Democratic Party activist. In his career, he’s been a county chairman, campaign manager and congressional candidate. At 54, Adler has watched California elections all his adult life.

Adler confessed that Checchi is a puzzle to him. He has not decided to vote for him; interestingly, nor has he decided not to.

Adler, a willing contributor to Democratic campaigns, says of Checchi: “Here’s a guy who doesn’t need my help. . . . So, on the one hand, I think that’s great for the system and for me personally in that I don’t have to come up with the big bucks like I usually do. On the other hand, I’m not so sure I like a process where people don’t have to come to voters and activists. This guy doesn’t have to consult with anybody. That is disturbing, to some extent. It’s a real conundrum, and a lot of us who are activists are having difficulty trying to get our hands around it. That’s all we’re talking about--how you deal with that.”

I ask Adler about Checchi’s “legitimacy” as a rich, novice candidate. “There’s no question about his legitimacy and no question about his interest and no question, at least in my mind, about whether he can do the job,” Adler says. “But there is the question, at least in my mind and a lot of others, of just who is he and who is he going to listen to if he gets there, because the political process does require consultation--and consultation at a lot of different levels--to make it work.”

For party insiders, Adler says, Checchi provides an extra level of enticement. If nominated next month, he might well spend lots of money not only on his own general election campaign but on a host of legislative races as well.

Then why are you waffling, I ask. “For the simple reason,” Adler says, “that you would be as a voter: Is he going to listen?”

Adler is so torn by the Checchi candidacy that he says it “both attracts and repels me.” He is repelled by the money Checchi is willing to spend but attracted because he believes Checchi stands for something. “He’s probably the most thoughtful but also probably the most naive political candidate that I’ve met in a long time. He’s been very thoughtful about what he wants to achieve and he takes time to explain that, but he has great naivete about the process he’s going to have to confront to achieve what he wants. He makes it sound as if, if you just have the will you can achieve it.”

How will you decide who to vote for, I ask Adler. “I don’t know,” he says. “At this point, this is the most unusual primary I’ve ever been involved in. Usually I’m very involved and active in somebody’s campaign, and I can make an argument for all three [Democrats], but no one yet has been compelling enough that I want to get engaged.”

Like me, however, Adler can’t seem to shake Checchi. “There’s real depth to this man,” Adler says. “I believe he’s running for the right reasons. I’m convinced the guy is thoughtful, that his head is squarely between his shoulders, and that this is not an ego trip and that he really wants to do something. That’s why I don’t dismiss him.”

Still, it comes down to conundrums. “It’s the conundrum of democracy,” Adler says. “This is not unlike what happened in the Roman republic when the wealthiest and the most powerful citizens would buy elections. Most of the people we hold up as noble Roman republicans simply paid for their elections.”

So, Adler says with a light-hearted reference to Checchi, “there is a noble precedent.”

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com