Political News Summary: March 6: Simon Says So

W A S H I N G T O N, March 6 -- Democrats want the history books to reflect the President, and Karl Rove, taking one on the chin for backing former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in the California gubernatorial primary —but what the Republicans have now, in nominee William Simon, is better than what they would have had if the White House hadn't tried to recruit Riordan into the race.

Click here, and we'll let you know when the note is ready each day.

Without Riordan, Simon probably wouldn't have been the nominee, what with his main rival likely to have been the more experienced, equally conservatively credentialed Secretary of State Bill Jones. Now, Republicans have a giant-killer as their nominee, and the White House and the state GOP surely will back him.

Simon ran a good campaign and Riordan a terrible one, thus giving the White House, in the important "technical competence" competition, the better candidate.

Still, history WILL record that the White House badly misjudged the primary politics of the state, which does not bode well for its longer-term hopes of rebuilding the party here. They also misjudged Riordan's abilities (about which they had been warned), and close observers now will closely observe the progress of some of the other hand-picked Administration candidates to see if they implode too, either in primaries or in the general election.

Can Simon in victory or defeat be the vehicle for the White House's desire to appeal to women and minorities and create a Bush beachhead in the Golden State for 2004? Maybe. But he clearly doesn't have the issue positions or the record of outreach to these groups and to centrists and Democrats that made Riordan initially so attractive.

Democrats and Republicans we've talked with in California agree: if Gov. Gray Davis (D) can make this race about Simon being "too right-wing," "too inexperienced," and with too many controversial business dealings, the Governor probably will win re-election.

"Even before the polls closed Tuesday night, [top Davis strategist] Garry South … was dismissing Simon as 'a garden-variety right-winger … By appealing in the primary to the most conservative Republican voters, [Simon] has painted himself into a very tiny and ultimately untenable corner,' South said."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016757mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )

But if Simon can make himself into an acceptable, business-savvy alternative to a governor with a power crisis and a budget crisis under his belt, and keep the focus on Davis' record, he might just pull off a second miraculous upset.

Simon's biggest helper in this regard, provided the campaign effectively plots to use him, could be his friend and former boss Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Simon and cut a TV spot for him in the primary and no doubt will offer similar help in the general election campaign. How much of his time Rudy will be able to spend on this race remains in question, though, given the nationwide party demand for his time.

The Los Angeles Times story adds, "As a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights and gun control, Giuliani, some consultants think, could blunt Davis' attacks by vouching for Simon on those issues … Giuliani will be in California this week and might campaign with Simon on Friday."

Back in Washington, the White House does have a victory of sorts to celebrate — one which may be more diffuse but politically perhaps even more key: having appeared to have pulled off the steel compromise without too much grumbling from either side, while helping to secure the president's standing in steel states hosting key House and Senate races in 2002, and which could figure prominently on the 2004 electoral college map.

We'd note two possible caveats to this, however. First, the White House always has cast Bush's decision on this issue as a reflection of his character, so what does it say about that character now that blind quotes are starting to seep out describing this compromise as a political decision?

The The Wall Street Journal has a short editorial bemoaning the decision, concluding with these ringing words: "This is President Bush's worst day so far" — which, if you consider the whole pretzel thing, is saying quite a bit.

The Journal's front-page news story calls it "the most dramatically protectionist step of any president in decades."

And second, we're no experts, certainly, but we think USA Today 's story today, in which a guy who DOES appear to be an expert says the tariffs are a temporary solution, while the lack of subsidies on the legacy costs — the health benefits — are the killer, is worth asking about.

The nation's newspaper reminds us, "Bush's unwillingness to have Washington assume so-called legacy costs for retirees is likely to kill plans for U.S. Steel to buy No. 3 Bethlehem and all or part of other struggling producers, including Wheeling-Pittsburgh and National Steel. Some teetering steelmakers, including Bethlehem, could go under as a result."( http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-03-06-steel.htm )

Someone might want to talk to his guy: "Tariffs on imports 'are window-dressing,' says Leo Larkin, metals analyst at Standard & Poor's. "The legacy costs were everything.' Larkin says the Bush plan will give U.S. Steel and a handful of healthy integrated steel companies breathing room from low-cost imports while they try to restructure. 'Tariffs will buy them time, not continued existence.'"

One Washington Post story notes, "The action was a rare departure for an administration that has championed free trade both at home and abroad. But the president said it was an appropriate exception in the face of years of unfair trading practices by foreign countries that had 'resulted in bankruptcies, serious dislocation and job losses' in the United States." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44323-2002Mar5.html )

We could excuse someone who finds the White House argument that President Bush made a bold bid for free trade by imposing these tariffs to be, well, Clintonesque. But amidst all the war news, he seems to have gotten the matter behind him, and our long-running stem-cell metaphor seems more apt to us than ever.

For the most part, the president pleased steel and its workers with "the most aggressive action taken by a president to protect a domestic industry from imports since Ronald Reagan imposed steel import restraints in the mid-1980s."

The Los Angeles Times adds, "Administration officials are gambling that the political benefits of coming to the aid of an embattled industry and its workers will outweigh the costs, which may diminish if the United States enjoys a robust economic recovery. But its calculations could go awry if prices soar, downstream job losses multiply or exporting countries embark on a trade war."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000016752mar06.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )

Getting into the politics of it all, the Washington Post 's Allen writes that even though Larry Lindsey might have said, "'Politics will play no role'" in the steel decision, "several activists who met with administration officials on the matter said politics seemed important to those who calibrated the plan announced yesterday. Even a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said of the tariff decision: 'Politics is part of everything any administration does.'"( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44335-2002Mar5.html )

"The decision gives the Republican Party a boost in the electorally crucial steel states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, and it could enhance Bush's efforts to win greater support among labor families. Strategists from both parties agreed that six seats in this fall's House races — exactly the number of net victories Democrats need to regain a majority — might have swung away from Republicans if Bush had made a decision that was seen as anti-steel. 'I hate to say it,' a Democratic consultant said, 'but I think he's taken this issue off the table. It's very depressing.'"

Conservatives are calling the tariff a tax increase — but even Grover "Live Free or Die" Norquist is quoted in the Post saying he'll let it slide.

Another Los Angeles Times story notes that this probably helped Bush on fast track. "The legislation is pending in the Senate, where it is expected to pass. But the House may be forced to vote again on the legislation after differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled. If another House vote is taken, about three dozen Republicans from steel-producing states who provided crucial support for Bush's trade bill in December would be able to point to the tariff decision to justify another vote for the president's position."( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000016780mar06.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Da%5Fsection )

President Bush and Senate Democrats will face off on several matters today, as Bush fires a shot across the bow by meeting with controversial judicial nominee Charles Pickering this morning, and the Senate (finally) takes up the energy bill.

Bush won't just meet with Pickering — he'll "urge Senate Democrats to allow a floor vote to confirm the embattled nominee, according to White House officials." The Judiciary Committee vote currently is scheduled for Thursday.( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-782800.htm)

At the same time, even Pickering's staunch Republican allies are resigned to not having the votes to get him confirmed in committee. We wonder if the president's goal is to appease his base, or does he really want to pressure Senator Daschle to allow an unusual, though not unprecedented floor vote after Pickering is (presumably) defeated in committee? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/politics/06JUDG.html )