ABSENTEE ARNOLD

by Virginia Postrel  •  Sep 3, 2003 at 11:14 pm

http://www.dynamist.com/432/absentee-arnold

Amid a rant on the low quality of LAT political coverage, HughHewitt made the pre-debate case that Arnold was wise not to join tonight's candidate debate:

There is an article on today's "debate" by Mark Barabak that is primarily a slam on AS's decision to skip this one, even though the threshold is so low --4%-- that the format will allow Arianna and Greenman Peter Camejo to play smack the front-runner along with Gray, Cruz, and Tom McClintock. Prediction: Only the cerebral and classy Ueberroth will refrain from piling on AS. The wisdom of skipping the ambush dressed up as a debate is obvious, even though the Times won't write about it.

The newspaper coverage suggests that the debate was pretty ritualistic and thus a pretty good event to skip.

But that doesn't mean Arnold can get away with his current, "Elect me, I'm a movie star businessman and I love California" platform indefinitely. He says he'll be a leader if elected, but he won't be able to lead anything other than calisthenics if he gets elected without telling voters how he'd make policy--and budget--tradeoffs. Eventually he'll have to make someone mad, and it will be easier to get away with that as governor if he can point to something of a mandate.

Again judging from the admittedly hostile press coverage, it doesn't sound like Tom McClintock helped himself in the debate. Reporters may emphasize his socially conservative positions, but the bigger question is why he won't give a straight answer about budget cuts. McClintock has been a fiscal tightwad for years, and he knows the state budget well. Why doesn't he tell us what spending he wants to get rid of? Even if he loses, the state would benefit from hearing some specific ideas for spending reductions.

All in all, this election's serious candidates seem to be listening to too many slick political consultants--who learn at consultant school that California political candidates never gain by telling voters what policies they want. Bustamante's scary populist economics might catch on by default. At least he says what he's for. Too bad his ideas are so bad.