Riordan Could Fill State Leadership Void

Quicker than you can say “Sen. Rodham Clinton,” outgoing Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan took a page from Hillary’s playbook and has embarked on a “listening tour” of California. He will talk to voters and, sometime this fall, decide whether to run for governor. “My conscience tells me that when there’s a vacuum, I should fill that vacuum,” Riordan told reporters.

If finding said leadership vacuum is all that’s required, then count Riordan in. We also have late-breaking word that there’s gambling in Casablanca.

It’s painfully evident that California is a riderless horse these days. Citizens hold little faith in any individual or institution to solve the energy crisis. Sacramento is a town of old habits, not new ideas. There is no bipartisanship and no real progress on big issues. The electorate, in a word, is sour.

Riordan will hear all of this during his summer odyssey. Republicans should hope that once he’s through listening, he will do some serious soul-searching, for his decision could profoundly affect the heart and soul of the California GOP beyond November 2002.

California is a divided state--north and south, urban and rural, Anglo and minority. California Republicans, too, are badly splintered into conservative and moderate factions. The two sides fight at party conventions. They cannot find common ground on abortion. They cannot agree on an agenda or a direction for the state party. Both are stubborn to a fault, and their bickering is the perfect antidote for what ails Gov. Gray Davis.

Riordan’s emergence in the governor’s race changes those dynamics. His wealth, ties to a big donor base and high name recognition in Southern California make him a “Cliff Notes” candidate: If he enters the race, he takes a short cut straight to the head of the line.

He adds two other odd dynamics as well. First, look for donors who like to give to both sides to give to Davis between now and September, before Riordan makes up his mind. It’s called saving face in case Riordan opts not to run. Second, Riordan’s presence makes it tougher for the other two Republicans--Secretary of State Bill Jones and investment banker Bill Simon--to raise money and get financial traction in this race.

There’s only one down side to Riordan running, and it may be the one thing that dooms his candidacy before it takes flight: It requires too much of a reality check for those who care little for realpolitik.

For some conservative Republicans, accepting Riordan is tantamount to accepting that a pro-choice candidate is preferable in a statewide race, that Dan Lungren and not Pete Wilson was the real problem in 1998 and that the state GOP needs to redefine itself as more inclusive toward gays and minorities. Some would call that surrender.

But losing has a way of changing things. Perhaps conservatives could tolerate Riordan as they did Wilson during his Senate and gubernatorial years. Which is more important, principles or winning? And are the two necessarily incompatible?

There is a growing dissatisfaction and frustration in California, and the GOP is no exception. No Republican could have enjoyed watching President Bush’s awkward visit last week. Moderates are determined not to be ignored in this cycle. They thought they had their man in Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now their hopes are riding on Riordan.

In the state that’s now empty in the saddle, have moderate Republicans found their someone to ride their horse to victory?