On the eve of her swing into New York next week, Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken the first concrete steps toward making a run for the Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
For public consumption, Clinton is sticking to her stance that she’s merely “considering” entering the race for the Senate. Behind the scenes, however, her White House staff is already making plans to hire a separate New York campaign staff to get ready for the November 2000 election.
One likely Clinton hire, sources say, is David Doak, a Washington consultant who most recently ran the media campaign that helped elect Democrat Gray Davis governor of California. Doak was also part of the firm that ran New York Mayor David Dinkins’ successful campaign in 1989. According to one veteran New York political consultant: “The decision has already been made. The word around New York is that she’s going with David Doak.”
Clinton’s press office did not return phone calls Friday. Neither did Harold Ickes, the former White House advisor who is now Clinton’s top political advisor on the New York race. Doak, who has publicly expressed interest in having a role in the campaign, told Salon News he has not yet been hired by Clinton. “We have not made any kind of agreement. I’ve talked to people in the campaign, if [campaign] is really the right word.”
Asked whether he expects to be hired, Doak said, “That’s totally her choice. I’ve been a friend for 25 years. I think the world of her. It’s certainly her decision, but I’ll help her any way I could.”
The Hillary for Senate bandwagon took off with a bang in February, just as her husband’s impeachment trial came to an end. The very day President Clinton was acquitted, she reportedly sat down with Ickes to begin talking about the Moynihan seat. Throngs of New York Democrats, including Moynihan, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, former New York Mayor Ed Koch and many others, have urged Clinton to run, envisioning a hot race against the likely Republican contender, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani — a matchup that could rival the presidential campaign in excitement, and in campaign spending as well.
The tantalizing possibility of a Clinton 2000 campaign made the covers of Time and Newsweek on March 1, after the first lady decorously confirmed her interest in late February: “I will give careful thought to a potential candidacy in order to make a decision later this year,” she said in a prepared media statement. Since then, she’s added little to the public record on the subject.
Clinton’s silence hasn’t stopped people close to her from speculating about her alleged intentions in the media. But the messages conflict. Some friends and staff members have insisted she won’t run, that she’s tired of the glare of the spotlight and doesn’t want to endure a New York media hazing. Others tell reporters she’s enthusiastic about running a campaign of her own, after years in the shadow of her husband.
In New York, knowledgeable Democrats insist that a final decision still has not been made. But they say Clinton is better organized and more informed about New York’s fractious political world than has previously been reported. “She knows more about upstate New York already than Geraldine Ferraro knew at the end of the campaign,” said one New York source, referring to the Queens Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate last year. “In fact, she knows more about upstate than Giuliani,” the source added.
New York Democrats say Clinton has “feelers out” to leading fund-raisers, while Washington sources say she has told her staff that she is about to hire a New York campaign staff. This week Ickes told the Associated Press that Clinton’s upcoming New York trip would include multiple stops across the state — including the Republican bastions of western New York state and suburban New York City — to give her a sense of what running a New York campaign might be like. “There’ll be more press, more people taking to her and so I think she’ll come away with a much better feel about the intensity of the situation,” Ickes said.
Clinton’s delay in making a final decision is a politically touchy issue. New York Democrats want her to make up her mind fairly quickly, to give other Democrats time to raise money if she decides not to run, in a race that could cost up to $20 million. Rep. Nita Lowey of Westchester County has declared she will run for the Democratic Senate nomination if Clinton does not. To keep her options open, but avoid hurting Lowey, Clinton and her supporters explored the possibility of establishing a campaign fund that could be used for either candidate, but they could not do that legally. So Clinton offered to come to New York to raise funds for Lowey if she does not run herself.
Sources say Clinton has been encouraged by a sharp decline in the political fortunes of her most likely Republican opponent, Giuliani, in the wake of controversy over the New York Police Department’s killing of African street vendor Amadou Diallo in February. A March 28 New York Daily News poll found the mayor’s popularity has “plunged to an all-time low” in the aftermath of the Diallo shooting, when Giuliani defended the police department and treated Diallo’s family and supporters callously. His approval rating is now only 40 percent, down a whopping 20 points from just six months ago. Seventy-three percent of those polled objected to his criticism of the police protests, which he dismissed as “silly” publicity stunts.
Even more worrisome for Giuliani, he may now face political opposition from former supporters and fellow Republicans, regardless of what Clinton decides to so. The mayor’s relations with Republican Gov. George Pataki have been strained ever since Giuliani supported incumbent Democrat Mario Cuomo over Pataki in 1994. The mayor has also angered other party faithful with his vocal support of immigration and unfettered abortion rights, and his backing of President Clinton during the recent impeachment crisis.
Now Republicans are striking back. Pataki was among the scores of critics who lashed out at the mayor’s handling of the Diallo killing. The New York Times reported recently that Pataki and Alphonse D’Amato are tacitly backing Long Island Republican Rep. Rick Lazio, whose campaign war chest was approaching a hefty $2 million by the end of last year, in a possible primary challenge to Giuliani for the Senate seat. Lazio thinks his popularity among more traditional Republican voters could lead to a primary upset.
Giuliani’s appeal as a candidate in a general election matchup is based largely on his strong crossover appeal in the city of New York, which is overwhelmingly Democratic. But bipartisan support is useless in a closed party primary, and Lazio, also a moderate Republican, is considered a stronger candidate in the New York suburbs, which typically turn out more Republican voters.
But Clinton’s poll numbers have dropped, too, since she began toying publicly with her candidacy. According to the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, Clinton enjoyed an 11-point lead over Giuliani in a head-to-head match in January, with the support of 52 percent of those polled. By March 26, Clinton’s margin had dwindled to a little more than 2 points, with only 48 percent of those polled. Other polls indicated a similar tightening of the race over the same period.
New York pollsters say the slippage is natural. “Certainly everything’s looking much more competitive as the [election] draws closer,” says Lee Miringoff of the Marist Institute. Early polls showing Clinton doing well in upstate New York, a Republican stronghold, have given way to more typical upstate Republican support for Guiliani, downstate Democratic support for Clinton. But the polls, which survey registered voters, can’t measure a potential surge in the polls that a Clinton-Giuliani race would likely inspire. “People have raised the possibility that she will energize the Democratic base — minorities and urban voters — which doesn’t like Giuliani,” Miringoff says.
Some political tea-leaf readers saw signs this week that Clinton had decided not to run, when she said she would not attend a New York State Democratic Party dinner scheduled for April 29. But New York Democrats cautioned against reading too much into that decision. “She had never been confirmed at the dinner, she was only invited,” one official said. “And I think she could not attend that dinner as merely the first lady. It would have been like a coronation, a political coming out, and she wasn’t ready for that.”
In a move perceived as betraying his Latino supporters, California Gov. Gray Davis opted Thursday to seek mediation in the case of Proposition 187, reviving the controversial ballot measure approved by California voters in 1994.
The initiative would have eliminated social benefits for undocumented immigrants and ban undocumented children from attending public schools. But it was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer last year. In her ruling, Pfaelzer said only the federal government had the right to set immigration policy. Davis predecessor, Gov. Pete Wilson, appealed the decision, and Davis was under tremendous pressure from his left flank to abandon the appeal.
Though Davis said he was personally opposed to what the measure sought to achieve, he felt duty-bound as governor to uphold the will of the majority. “If this were a piece of legislation, I would veto it,” he said in a Sacramento press conference Thursday. “But its not. Its an initiative, passed by nearly 60 percent of the voters through a process specifically designed to go over the heads of the Legislature and the governor. If officials choose to selectively enforce only the laws they like, our system of justice will not long endure.”
While stopping short of asking for a full appeal, Davis breathed new life into Proposition 187 Thursday, asking the 9th District Court of Appeals Mediation Services to try to broker a compromise solution. His move leaves open the possibility that elements of the law may eventually be implemented. Had Davis dropped the appeal, the measure would have died.
The most vocal critics of the Democratic governors decision have come from within his own party. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, California’s only statewide elected Latino, was firm in his criticism of Davis. “I was there with my family when [Davis] said that our election meant the end of wedge issue politics,” Bustamante said in a written statement. “I didn’t think that meant that it was pending mediation. I do not think Proposition 187 is morally or legally defensible.”
State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles, lobbied publicly to get Davis to abandon the appeal, and was obviously unsatisfied with Davis proposed pseudo-compromise. “The speaker is disappointed in the route chosen by the governor,” said Villaraigosa spokeswoman Elena Stern. “He thinks this is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it perpetuates a potential war against children. But he also recognizes that he is not the governor and it was not his decision to make.”
Davis’ have-it-both-ways approach is indicative of the new governors style. In his first 100-plus days in office, Davis has been a painstakingly deliberate, finger-to-the-wind politician, trying to abide by his campaign promise to “govern as a moderate.”
During his run for governor last year, Davis used his Republican opponents support of Proposition 187 as a campaign issue to help galvanize California Latinos, many of whom felt the measure was tinged with racist overtones. When running for reelection in 1994, Wilson made illegal immigration the cornerstone of his campaign, and ran a controversial campaign ad with blurry images of people crossing the border into California, with an ominous narration that began, “They keep coming.”
Wilson was vilified in the Latino community, and anti-Wilson sentiment was seen as a key element of the boost in Latino political participation in the state over the last five years. In an effort to tap the states burgeoning Latino vote, which now makes up 13 percent of Californias total electorate, Davis blasted Wilsons support of Prop. 187 on the campaign trail, and promised “an end to wedge issue politics.”
When she wheeled into Sacramento Monday morning on the 8:15 Amtrak Capitol, Audie Bock was just an east-Asian scholar from Piedmont, Calif. But by afternoon, Bock made history as the first-ever Green Party member to be sworn into the California Legislature.
Bock stunned political insiders last week with her 327-vote victory over former Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris, a Democrat, in a special election in which only 15 percent of registered voters came to the polls. She became the anti-establishment candidate, running on the motto “Vote Green, Not Machine,” and attracted votes from Republicans, Democrats and third-party proponents.
The first signs of trouble for the Harris campaign came after the Democratic Party sent out a controversial mailer during the run-off election in February. The mailer, sent to predominantly African-American communities, rewarded voters with a free chicken dinner if they provided proof they went to the polls. Bock and others criticized the mailer following the primary, calling it a bribe with racial overtones to drive black voters to the polls.
“I guess the chickens came home to roost,” joked Berkeley Democratic Rep. Dion Aroner.
The loss was an embarrassment for Democrats, who enjoy an overwhelming registration advantage in the district. Democrats account for 65 percent of all registered voters, while Greens make up only 1.2 percent. Bock becomes the first Green Party candidate ever elected to state office.
Even Bock’s campaign manager, Greg Jan, acknowledged that the election was as much a referendum on the former Oakland mayor as it was about his candidate. After eight lackluster years as mayor, Harris chose not to run again at least partly because of questions about whether he could be reelected. His decision to run for the Assembly instead, where he had already served six terms before becoming mayor in 1990, exemplified the arrogance of career politicians to many voters.
He beat back strong opponents in the primary thanks to the help of state Democratic Party leaders and Sacramento legislators, who funneled money and election workers to his campaign. Rumors that San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, the former Assembly speaker, was helping Harris line up votes to be the next speaker before his Oakland constituents even elected him further hurt his cause.
The voters had the last word. In a five-way primary six weeks ago, Bock received just over 3,000 votes. Last Tuesday she garnered more than 14,000 in the head-to-head matchup with Harris.
“This was a diverse coalition of disaffected Democrats, Republicans and some other third-party folks,” Jan said. “Voters sent a clear message that they wanted to defeat Harris and bring change to the area.”
Bock’s election also means that Oakland, a city with a plurality of African-American residents, now has a white mayor, a white state senator and a white assemblywoman.
After the loss, Democrats were looking for a scapegoat. “Clearly someone dropped the ball,” said Bob Mullholland, political director for the state Democratic Party. “This was like the downing of the stealth bomber: There will be a full inquiry.”
Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles, who sent staffers to Oakland to walk precincts for Harris both in the primary and the run-off, did not appear terribly stung by the defeat. Villaraigosa got involved in the three-person Democratic primary in part as a favor to his predecessor, Willie Brown, who was concerned about the dwindling representation of African-Americans in the Legislature, now down to six out of 120 Assembly members and senators.
“I feel good about my performance in this election, but unfortunately it was not enough,” Villaraigosa said. “We were not able to convince enough of Elihu’s base to come out and vote. But I look forward to working with [Bock]. We share a lot of the same progressive ideas, and you have to give her credit for running a great campaign.”
Villaraigosa’s intervention on Harris’ behalf angered some members of his caucus who had backed attorney Frank Russo in the Democratic primary. One of those members, Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said she was not surprised by Tuesday’s result.
“It became clear that, even though there were members of the caucus who worked very hard to support Elihu, there was no real local infrastructure of support,” she said. “You can’t prop up from the outside what’s missing in the middle.”
With few Western journalists inside Yugoslavia, e-mail from residents has become a lifeline for anyone seeking on-the-ground accounts of the NATO airstrikes and the reaction to them. Salon has received e-mail from readers and others who are bent on ensuring that Americans see what’s going on inside their country. Some of the dispatches below may repeat Serbian disinformation received from state media; some may contain eyewitness accounts unavailable to date in the West. We have changed the names of those who might be endangered by their writing. Postcards from Yugoslavia will run periodically in Salon during the Kosovo crisis.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
From Dusan Djordjevich, a Serbian-American Ph.D. candidate in history at Stanford University. He is currently in Belgrade doing research for his dissertation.
Saturday evening, March 27
Air-raid sirens have just sounded in Belgrade, marking the fourth night of NATO’s bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. There were two waves earlier today of 2-3 hours each, the last one ending with an all-clear signal around 4:30 p.m. (One quickly learns to distinguish the two signals with the help of civil defense bulletins on TV and brochures stuffed this morning into mailboxes.)
For the moment, most who live and work in Belgrade’s central districts don’t fear direct airstrikes. In the outskirts and across the Save River in the high-rises of the post-WWII settlement “New Belgrade” — from where residents hear, see and feel explosions against nearby targets — people feel much less secure. Many spend the evenings in shelters and basements.
Daytime is calmer, a chance to relax a bit, try to catch up on lost sleep and gather news of the previous night’s attacks. Evenings (for those not in shelters) are spent on the phone to family and friends, and listening to the news. For those who have them, satellite dishes and short-wave radios provide news from West European stations to complement the local reporting. There’s also the Internet, of course, but very few people have access to it. Even with various sources available, it is sometimes hard to get an accurate picture of events; both Western and domestic coverage is taken with a grain of salt.
It is hard to relax and escape even briefly from the pressure of the situation. Already on Tuesday, the day before the bombing began, those who wanted to watch the Schwarzenegger comedy “Twins” on TV were greeted instead with the historical drama “The Battle of Kosovo.” Other shows are preempted by old Partisan vs. German WWII movies or by classical music concerts. On Friday night there was a surprise broadcast of “Wag the Dog,” with an introductory reminder about its current relevance.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
From Tijana Mirovic, a psychology student at the University of Belgrade and a volunteer at the First Children’s Embassy, a humanitarian organization based in the Yugoslav capital.
Saturday, March 27
This has gone too far! It is an unbelievable outrage! Yesterday we were sitting in our shelters listening to bombs destroying our city and our people. For those of you who still don’t know what to think about these aggressions I will share some of the information that we got:
- Yesterday they bombed 17 spots in Belgrade! Among them : a hospital, four schools and a factory with toxic material (which got spilled and jeopardized the lives of all civilians living in that area).
- In Kosovo their bomb damaged a 6-centuries-old (and UNESCO protected) monastery, Gracanica.
- In Nis their bombs destroyed a hospital.
- In Kragujevac they bombed the car industry (that produces Yugo) which feeds 35.000 families. As response to that, workers have decided to form a 24-hour “wall of people” which would surround the factory and protect it with their and their families’ lives. They have sent the precise position of the factories both to NATO and media and a note saying that at least 1,000 people will always be in or around the factory, so if they want to bomb they will have to get ready to kill some people too.
What military objects are these? What is this going to do for world peace?
Sunday, March 28
I am ashamed of the things members of “my people” did to Albanians in Kosovo and Muslims in Bosnia and for that reason I am doing everything I can to help misfortuned and terrorized people now. But I also know that it is not the whole nation who did it and that we have to go past this hate and blame and to put all of our efforts in trying to live together again. That is why this bombing hurts so much!
I strongly believe that this bombing has started something that can never be repaired. I seriously doubt that after this we will ever be able to live peacefully and in love in this one country. I also believe (and have witnessed) that we have grown a hostility toward many more nations now and that Europe is never again going to be a friendly place. In times like these, I thank God for giving me so many great friends in the U.S. because I fear that I would have fallen in this “hate and everybody is an enemy” ordeal myself. People in the U.S. do not see it, but this is destroying any chance we ever had of working things out peacefully! This is destroying any chance for us [young and educated people] to get our say and to peacefully pull Milosevic off the scene. Now we will be [labeled] traitors of the country. He has emerged way stronger and he has now became a symbol of our dignity, strength and freedom.
I just wish more Americans could see the difference between “us” and “him”!
- – - – - – - – - -
From a Yugoslav in Belgrade who has been writing to Salon correspondent Jeff Stein.
I know you are a journalist. If you are for peace you can stop the killing of many people, including yours. For example: NATO is bombing Pristina heavily tonight. They have been bombing from the beginning but not like tonight. At the same time on CNN they are pushing news about large numbers of refugees. It is not truth. People are running but not from Serbians. They are running from your bombing. They are running from Albanian terrorists who are forcing them to take guns and fight even if they don’t want. At the same time some of the Albanian leaders are in Switzerland and Germany. They take money from narcotics and leave Kosovo.
If you as a journalist give a chance to tell the other side (Serbs), then you have a chance to save your soldiers too. With this false news of refugees they are preparing the ground and making excuses to enter with NATO troops in Kosovo. Do you have enough bags for all of them? Do you have more planes? As we were talking, you lost two more planes over Kosovo. Today you lost one in Bjeljina. NATO says you lost only one. If they are lying how can you trust them regarding the complete situation in Kosovo?
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
-
From Andrei, a resident of Belgrade writing regularly to friends in the United States.
Sunday, March 28
You don’t know a thing about situation in Belgrade. I am trapped inside my own house, alerts are on for more than two-thirds of a day and even when they are not on I am afraid to go out and risk meeting some friendly MPs that would be glad to give me a first class ride to Kosovo if they caught me. That leaves me at my own house, I am even afraid to answer a door bell, because of the friendly gentlemen that walk around in uniforms and give free tickets To Kosovo. And you get a “completely free” uniform and a gun to go with that ticket. That is an offer even you couldn’t refuse. What else can I do except check my mail every half an hour and eat?
Only thing that is lifting my morale is that we have our own modern tech miracle — like you have your stealth plane. Our tech miracle is a guy called Avram Izrael. He is the main guy in the civil protection service. He has the pleasure of telling us two messages at least four time a day: “Alert, alert, NATO air forces are above Belgrade air space, please don’t panic and go to your shelters calmly and quietly.” The second is, “Alert, alert the threat of bombing has now stopped. Please return to your homes calmly and quietly.” Honestly the guy is on TV every two hours informing citizens and his shift started two days before bombing. That means that the guy has not slept for some seven days. The theory is that since he can’t be human he is a robot — a first Serb robot that looks like a human — real technology miracle. Admit it that even you don’t have that kind of technological miracle. Now that you know about it you should surrender!!! 
))))
The longer this is going on more I am thinking about getting away from this country. I cant do that until things calm down since the borders are closed down for all men aged from 18-65. I am thinking about getting away after things calm down and not returning. Things will only get worse when this thing stops, it doesn’t matter how it ends.
From dark and depressing Belgrade,
Your friend
Andrei
Monday, March 29
I finally got some sleep. I slept through the two air attack alerts and in the end I was finally woken up by my mother after seven hours of sleep. She is working in the state government and they have to work, even if the country is in the war. That means that she has to stay here and even if she didn’t have to stay, I don’t think that she would leave. So we will both stay here. I am becoming very emotionally tired and depressed from all these things that are happening. If I watch the news I get even more irritated but if I don’t watch the news I feel completely helpless and locked out of the world. I don’t know which of the two is worst. I will probably go with watching the news and getting irritated. It feels better than isolation.
I feel bad cause all I talk about is my problems. Sorry if I sound boring.
Andrei
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The largest crop yet of presumptive Republican presidential candidates gathered here last weekend at the California Republican Party convention. But the contenders’ visit was overshadowed by an internecine battle over the election of party officers, which became a proxy for how Republicans will address the divisive issue of abortion. If California is any kind of a bellwether — and it usually is — there’s more bad news ahead for the GOP.
The convention’s marquee names included former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Family Research Council head Gary Bauer, former Vice President Dan Quayle, millionaire Steve Forbes, New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith and ultraconservative Alan Keyes (front-runners Elizabeth Dole and George W. Bush were no-shows). But those stars were upstaged by the previously little-known candidates for state party chairman and vice chairman. Moderates made a last-ditch effort to block the conservative heirs-apparent, but when the votes were counted, businessman Nicholas Bavaro lost his bid for chairman to conservative John McGraw, who’d made national news for telling a religious publication that “killing our babies [is the] issue of the century. Compared to that, cutting taxes or any other issue pales.”
Thus abortion headlines and tales of division, not reconciliation, dominated the stories coming out of Sacramento throughout the weekend. Many party moderates fear that obsession with divisive social issues will only add to the Republicans’ 1996 and 1998 electoral disappointments, and convince swing voters, especially in the growing Latino community, that the party is irrelevant to their future.
California Republicans are trying to rebound from their worst defeat in 40 years. In November, led by the religious conservatives who controlled the internal party hierarchy and both legislative houses, Republicans cringed as right-wing Attorney General Dan Lungren received a 20-point thumping from Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, who became the first Democrat in 20 years to capture the California statehouse. The party also lost ground in both the state Assembly and Senate, and watched liberal U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, believed an easy electoral target, march to victory against Matt Fong.
If the state party was looking for a convention that would begin the process of rehabilitation in the eyes of voters, this was probably not what its leaders would have scripted. One prominent state party leader referred to this weekend’s gathering as the Democrats’ “wet dream,” and GOP consultant Dan Schnur quipped the party was lined up in a “circular firing squad.”
“The key question is whether we want to be a governing party, or we want to continue to lose elections the way we did last November by highlighting how out of step we are on social issues,” said Bob Larkin, a Southern California activist and a leader among state GOP moderates. Voters in California differ sharply with the party’s views on key social issues like gun control and abortion. More than two-thirds of all voters consider themselves pro-choice and for some form of gun control. They opposed the Republicans’ impeachment crusade against the president in similar numbers.
But such poll data held little sway over the party faithful, or the hardcore candidates who came to lobby for their support. In his address to delegates, New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith said “killing children is the central issue facing our nation today, and it needs to be stopped. If we’re not going to stand up for the life of unborn children, maybe the Republican Party deserves to fall into the ash bin of history … and it will, if we don’t stand up for life.”
Others, like McCain and Alexander, avoided the abortion issue altogether. “Instead of laying down litmus tests and rigid pronouncements, reach out to others with whom we agree,” Alexander advised.
Delegates did not appear to take his advice when selecting party leaders. Incoming chairman McGraw has been a lightning rod for criticism from many moderates within the party who want to redirect the party’s focus back to economics. In the January issue of San Francisco Faith, he not only urged the party to stick with the abortion issue, but opposed gay rights. McGraw said he was “appalled that Catholic institutions like the Jesuit University of San Francisco openly champion the homosexual agenda.”
But California Republican Party officers have rarely been known for their moderate politics. In 1991, conservative activists who have long controlled the state party burned an effigy of Gov. Pete Wilson, a pro-choice centrist, after he signed off on the largest tax increase in state history. One of the organizers of the 1991 anti-Wilson demonstration was John Fleishman, who will serve as the party’s executive director under McGraw.
GOP strategist Tony Quinn said the party missed out on a key opportunity to do some housekeeping in the wake of last fall’s election debacle. McGraw, along with new party Vice Chairman Shawn Steel, “represents the fiasco of 1998,” Quinn said. “This is the leadership team that brought its party to its worst defeat in 40 years. Dan Lungren is the favorite whipping boy of most Republicans [in California], but some of the blame has to go to the party leadership.”
Though conservatives remain in control of the state party, California’s dynamic political landscape may still alter the message and soften the ideological stand of Republicans in California. One of the most significant changes in recent years is the state’s growing Latino population. The party’s continuing efforts at damage control among the state’s fastest-growing ethnic group could pull the GOP to the center.
Latinos now make up 14 percent of the general electorate in California, up from only 7 percent at the beginning of the decade. Many attribute that bump in participation to Gov. Pete Wilson’s 1994 racially charged reelection bid, in which he made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign.
In the wake of Wilson’s support for ballot measures to abolish affirmative action and curtail social services to undocumented residents, the party has lost significant support from the burgeoning Latino middle class. Many moderate Latinos left the party during the 1994 campaign, and have been slow in coming back. “The simplest thing in the world to do is count the numbers,” said GOP strategist Quinn. “Latinos now make up 14 percent of the electorate, and we can’t continue to spot Democrats 10 points out of the gate in every general election. That means a Republican simply cannot win in California without one-third of the state’s Latino vote.”
Getting that one-third could be an uphill battle. In spite of significant efforts at Latino outreach, Lungren received just 20 percent of the Latino vote in 1998. “Wilson was not able to differentiate between the legals and illegals in the minds of Latinos,” Quinn said. “That’s something this party needs to recover from.”
Among new California voters, more than half of whom are Latino, only one Republican is registered for every three Democrats. Statewide, Republican registration has fallen to a mere 34 percent overall, down from 39 percent in 1992.
The party made one important stride toward changing its anti-Latino image after the election with the elevation of moderate Republican Rod Pacheco to leader of the traditionally very conservative Assembly Republican caucus. Pacheco, now one of four Latino Assembly Republicans and the highest ranking Republican Latino in California, has surfaced as the primary spokesman for legislative Republicans. The necessity for Latino outreach among Republicans, and the climb of Latinos like Pacheco through the party ranks, may do more to moderate the party and its message than any other single trend in California politics.
Pacheco said even Latinos who register Republican “are, I think, more willing to accept that government can be part of the solution rather than simply a problem.” This fact has not been lost on many prospective presidential nominees, including a guy in Texas named Bush who received more than 40 percent of the Latino vote in his state, and who has repeatedly summoned Pacheco to Austin to plot California strategy.
Will Latino leaders help the party moderate its more extreme stands?
“I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of moderation as much as it is tolerance,” said Pacheco spokesman Mike Madrid, a former political director for the state party and now a state party delegate. “We have to end the mentality of ‘you’re either for us or against us.’”
