If Simon Loses, GOP Conservatives Could Rethink Riordan Snub

No one walks away without a scratch from a crash like Richard Riordan’s spin-out in last week’s California Republican primary. So it’s no surprise the White House is being pounded in political circles for recruiting the former Los Angeles mayor into the governor’s race. Even mild-mannered Gerald R. Ford, not generally known for edgy political commentary, told the New York Times that Riordan’s fall was “an adverse reflection on [the White House’s] judgment.”

Well, maybe. The White House deserves criticism for its performance as Riordan’s campaign headed toward defeat. But it’s too early to say Riordan’s loss reflects bad judgment on the part of Karl Rove and the rest of the White House political team. To the contrary; it’s entirely possible the general election will validate Rove’s initial view that the California GOP needed a more centrist candidate to beat embattled Democrat Gray Davis. Arguably, what’s really in the dock now is the political judgment of the conservative activists who powered Bill Simon Jr.’s nomination. In so many words, the Republican hard-core defiantly told the White House a social conservative could win statewide in California. Now they just have to prove it.

Which is not to say the White House didn’t make mistakes in the race. It encouraged Riordan into the contest, and then stood by as both Simon and Secretary of State Bill Jones relentlessly attacked his credentials as a legitimate Republican.

Rove confidantes argue that the White House “by convention and practice” could not intervene to defend one candidate against another in such a hotly contested Republican primary. But that didn’t mean Bush couldn’t have issued a blanket statement describing all three contenders as acceptable Republicans he would be happy to work with.

The White House silence was the equivalent of an officer who sends his soldiers into enemy fire and then stays safely in the trench. That timidity not only hurt Riordan but is likely to damage Bush’s broader hopes of creating a more inclusive Republican Party. The next time the White House comes calling, moderate GOP candidates might be forgiven for wondering if Rove and the president are going to stick with them when the charges start flying.

But that’s a long way from saying Rove was wrong to recruit Riordan in the first place. For all the problems in his campaign, documented in a post-primary story by Times reporters Mark Z. Barabak and Nicholas Riccardi, Riordan initially was a plausible solution to a very real Republican problem: the GOP’s collapse with moderate California voters. In the 1980s, Republicans controlled the center in California, polarizing swing voters against Democrats who opposed the death penalty or welfare reform. But in the 1990s Democrats moved to the center on crime and welfare, neutralizing those vulnerabilities. That has allowed Democratic candidates to turn swing voters against Republicans who oppose abortion and gun control, support school vouchers and favor industry on environmental issues.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore used that new complex of wedge issues to pulverize George Bush, father and son, in the state over the past three presidential elections. Davis employed the same weapons perhaps even more devastatingly in 1998 when he routed socially conservative Republican Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren by 1.6 million votes.

Riordan, who supports abortion and gun control, could have closed off the most effective of those attacks. Simon, who takes conservative positions on those issues, may instead face a virtual playback of the Lungren campaign. Simon maintains he can court the center by switching the subject from guns and abortion. But it’s a safe bet Davis will be talking about them--constantly. Within hours of Simon’s victory, Davis was on CNN describing his opponent as “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-voucher” and “out of step with Californians.”

“The question,” says one senior GOP strategist close to the White House, “is whether this is New Jersey again.” Indeed, the California contest is showing early similarity to the Republican gubernatorial race last year in New Jersey, another culturally liberal coastal state that has trended away from the GOP.

New Jersey GOP leaders rallied behind former Rep. Bob Franks. Like Riordan, he backed abortion and gun control. But a big turnout by social conservatives gave the nomination to former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler, who leaned right on both issues. The Wall Street Journal and other conservative opinion leaders rejoiced that the party had selected a real conservative (just as the same voices are doing with Simon). Schundler promised, Simon-like, to highlight other issues. Then the Democratic nominee, James McGreevey, proceeded to pummel him on guns and abortion and coast to victory. It was all as predictable as getting stuck at the tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Abortion and guns aren’t winning issues for Democrats everywhere; as the country’s political allegiance continues to sort out along cultural and regional lines, conservative positions (particularly on guns) hold the upper hand through the South and the Mountain West. But along the coasts, in the blue states that voted for Gore, social conservatives still have to demonstrate they can win statewide elections against centrist Democrats.

Simon has a better chance than most because Davis heads into the general election bleeding on energy and the budget. But unless Simon can concoct a better answer than “next question” when pressed about guns and abortion, history suggests he’ll have a hard time focusing the voters’ attention on Davis’ vulnerabilities rather than his own.

More than Simon’s fate is probably at stake for California Republicans. The senior GOP strategist says local Republicans encouraged the White House to solicit Riordan because they wanted to prove the party could still win statewide in California. The ultimate goal was to encourage Bush to contest the state in 2004. If Davis now rides guns and abortion to another victory, the strategist says, the odds of Bush battling for California next time will drop.

Which means the argument over the White House’s role in the primary could look very different in November. Today, it’s the White House’s judgment under fire. But if Simon loses and prompts Bush to bail on California in 2004, the conservatives who rejected Riordan may face the toughest questions.

*

Ronald Brownstein’s column appears every Monday. See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: https://www.latimes.com/brownstein.