Really? I don’t recall

In a somewhat turn from the norm of looking solely and wholly at

Newport-Mesa political issues, I can’t ignore the political story of

the season: the California recall.

The next few days, leading into Saturday’s 5 p.m. deadline for

filing papers to appear on the recall ballot, are certain to provide

political junkies with near-permanent fixes. With possible candidates

including porn pushers, punk rockers and divorced couples, the fun of

the race is impossible to ignore.

It might even include the embattled governor himself.

Setting aside the revelry in the politics of the story, there are

deeper, more important reasons to be watching this story, most of

them fairly obvious. They are the policy questions (as opposed to the

political ones) that the governor of this state has to answer. Gov.

Gray Davis’ failure to answer the economic questions is largely

energizing the recall, but whoever is leading this state also has to

answer social questions, education questions and environmental

questions.

Who should answer those questions for California is a serious

matter.

And it is entirely possible that voters will be taking the matter

seriously when (if?) they go to the polls.

Newport Beach’s Assemblyman, John Campbell, said this week that he

sees three reasons why people will support the recall:

* They believe Davis is incompetent;

* they believe the governor is not trustworthy; and

* they believe he is owned by special interests.

These same three reasons, Campbell said, are why he is behind the

effort. (Also, for what it’s worth, Democratic friends of mine seem

to agree with those three points.)

Campbell, of course, may have a lot to gain from a change in the

governor’s mansion. He is running to replace Newport-Mesa’s state

Sen. Ross Johnson, who is being forced out by term limits. Campbell’s

opponent and fellow Assemblyman, Ken Maddox, is being forced out of

the lower house by term limits, as well.

With myriad outcomes possible from the vote looming over the

state, I asked Campbell what he considered to be the best and worst

scenarios.

The worst, he was quick to say, would be Davis beating the recall.

“We would now have an entrenched governor there three more years,”

Campbell pointed out. The victory would be a validation for Davis,

who would stick with policies and programs Campbell, often times

publicly and loudly, disagrees with.

A Davis victory would be worse than another Democrat getting

elected, Campbell said.

“At least, hopefully, we would get someone competent,” he said.

One prominent name we won’t see on the ballot is Sen. Dianne

Feinstein, who announced Wednesday that she won’t run.

“I am very flattered by the many elected officials, community

leaders, and constituents who have urged me to place my name on the

recall ballot as insurance should the recall be successful,” she said

in a statement. “I want to thank each and everyone who called,

especially members of the House delegation and the state Legislature,

who are deeply concerned about our state’s future.

“After thinking a great deal about this recall, its implications

for the future, and its misguided nature, I have decided that I will

not place my name on the ballot,” she said.

As for the best-case scenario, don’t expect to see Campbell

touring about with Arnold, Riordan or Simon any time soon. He hasn’t

endorsed any candidate yet.

“I want to see a person articulate their vision,” Campbell said,

adding that “political combat” is where candidates are tested, where

their ability to engage voters and construct policy is demonstrated.

And there likely will be plenty of political combat, if the dozens

of potential candidates all do jump aboard the ballot.

Pushing aside that flotsam and jetsam, Campbell’s best result

would be:

“The best possible result is a Republican candidate that

articulates a vision that connects and gets enough of a percentage of

votes over the No. 2 so the person could claim with some argument

that they have connected with a significant part of the voting

public,” he said.

Campbell, rightly, stressed the need for a legitimate winner to

emerge, someone, he suggested, who would get 25% of the vote versus a

No. 2 at 11%.

Imagine, instead, a Republican governor trying to work with the

Democratic legislature while only being able to claim 12% of the

vote. Debate would invariably center on the 88% of the voters who

chose someone else, not to mention that two or three other

politicians might have had close to the same percentage. (There is

still talk about Al Gore having won more of the popular vote than

President Bush.)

In that situation, the new governor would have difficulty leading,

which seems to be how we all got to this place in the first place.

* S.J. CAHN is the managing editor. He can be reached at (949)

574-4233 or by e-mail at [email protected].