Republicans Rumble In OC

Comments (3)

COSTA MESA-- Meg Whitman. Steve Poizner. 60 minutes of debate in the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. More fun than you can possibly imagine on a Monday night. Wait, strike that last one.

And yet, tonight's debate features a first, and perhaps most important, chance for the candidates to set the narrative upon which most of this race will begin to be seen by California voters.

Rather than writing a 'pre' and 'post' debate analysis, let's try something different: a single posting that lays out some of the important things I'm watching for when the big show begins at 5:30 p.m., and which is then updated with how that issue actually played out. See for yourself what I thought would be important, and then what actually was. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

One thing's for sure: both candidates will proclaim victory. They always do.

The Quick Punch: Given the way the two candidates were trading barbs at the weekend Republican convention, it's probably worth pulling out a stopwatch to see how fast Poizner and Whitman start swinging tonight. As a follow-up, those first jabs probably aren't going to surprise anyone. For Poizner, it's going to be a night of decrying Whitman as too liberal; for Whitman, a night of calling Poizner a flip-flopper on the issues. That's actually a smart bet for the battle of the entire event, but my money's on Poizner going on the attack the quickest, especially as he continues to insist he's the more conservative of the two candidates. How'd They Do? Interestingly, no early punches. For much of the beginning, Poizner and Whitman seemed in sync on the big issues like downsizing government and no taxes. The first real difference came in a discussion of Whitman's plan for targeted tax cuts and Poizner's more sweeping cuts in taxes and spending, with Whitman claiming such a plan would cost the already depleted state budget $30 billion. Poizner later disagreed, with his staff explaining ways their modeling believes the Poizner plan actually brings in more revenue.

The only other unintended clash at the start: Whitman referenced an interview on another state's woes she heard on NPR, to which Poizner said, "I don't listen to NPR." Your blogger was amused.

Steve Poizner, calling himself the Alex P. Keaton of his family growing up, chose to again wear a blue shirt with no tie.The Big Theme: Speaking of the main message, it's hard to believe the two combatants will deviate much from the 'She's Too Liberal v. He's a Flip Flopper' narrative established over the weekend. 'Liberal,' of course, is the dirtiest word you can speak in Republican circles, and 'flip flopper' has been a nasty name to call someone ever since it was stamped on John Kerry's head in permanent ink in 2004. The question: can either candidate push the other back on their heels in this category, with some bit of factual info or some witty comment that momentarily leaves their opponent without a good comeback? How'd They Do? Again, not quite the contrast expected. Poizner actually seemed to stop short of calling Whitman a liberal, though he did get in a reference to the former eBay chief's support for Barbara Boxer in 2004. Whitman landed the more obvious punch in this category, launching into her campaign's frequent criticism of Poizner on illegal immigration positions they say he took while running for the Assembly in 2004 (more liberal, goes the argument) compared to his current call for a tough crackdown. Poizner later claimed that it's Whitman who has flipped when it comes to "amnesty."

Format Fanatic: If you watch enough political debates, you come to realize that the candidate who understands the format... and doesn't fight against it... often does well. Most challenging is the candidate who takes the time alloted to answering a question and uses it, instead, to try and settle a perceived grudge from four questions earlier. It may make the campaigns happy, but it often leaves viewers groaning because the question at hand gets short shrift. So I'll be watching to see who can get their answers and retorts into neat little packages and keep pushing forward, not who keeps dragging the event backwards. How'd They Do? They both stuck to the questions, which actually made the discussion stay lively and on topic. Impressive self discipline!

Whitman got the first Q and moved away from the podium, setting the stage for Poizner to do the sameGenerally, Specific: Debates aren't great venues for lots of policy details, but as a statehouse reporter who will cover the next governor up close, I'll be looking to see who can defend their positions or promises with some specific info. Cut taxes? What's the dollar cost? Slash spending? Does that include schools and prisons, or just the long-favored 'waste, fraud, and abuse'? How'd They Do? Better than many debates, but very much a recitation of their stump speeches. Some of the best new examples of specificity: Poizer calls for all legislation to be online for 72 hours so citizens can read it before legislative votes... he also calls for creating a new "chief innovation officer" to streamline regulations for business... Whitman promises to grade every K-12 school from A to F, so parents know what kind of education they're kids are getting... and Whitman seems to advocate more spending on higher education sooner than Poizner, though both cite the state;s budget woes when it comes to what can be afforded.

The Anti-Arnold: The convention that just ended offered a healthy dose of sneers about the big no-show, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. And so expect some jockeying tonight about who is, and isn't, prepared to govern differently. It may be particularly interesting to see who takes the most direct shot at Schwarzenegger, and what that shot is. How'd They Do? Relatively muted except for the big Schwarzenegger legacy issue: AB 32, the state law limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Whitman calls for a one-year suspension, Poizner calls the law "draconian" and says he supports the proposed initiative to suspend AB 32 until unemployment drops.

Game Changer? And finally, does anything happen here... in substance or style... that alters the narrative up to this point? Does the debate add something new to the campaign and provide voters an important glimpse into the candidate and what kind of governor he or she would be? Or is the debate a blip on the radar that's forgotten by next week? How'd They Do? How'd They Do? At first blush, no big game changers tonight. Both candidates spoke to reporters afterwards and said they thought the debate had gone well (and they always do), so we'll see how they handle the reviews from pundits in the next few days.

RSS Subscribe

About John Myers

John Myers is senior editor of KQED's new multimedia California Politics & Government Desk.  He has covered California politics for most of the past two decades -- serving previously as Sacramento bureau chief for KQED News and, most recently, as political editor for KXTV News10 (ABC) in Sacramento. He moderated the only gubernatorial debate of 2014, and was named one of the nation's top statehouse reporters by The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter @johnmyers.
  • Charlie Peters

    Money available to clean the air

    Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals, March 22, 2010

    The Smog Check issue has been under continuous legislative debate since 1993. AB 2289 by Eng is an opportunity to improve program performance and public support.

    We at the Clean Air Performance Professionals propose “reasonably available control measures” to improve California Smog Check performance. Consider a Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) quality audit to improve smog check performance.

    We propose using the CAP cars and funds to provide a random quality audit (or secret shopper) of smog check providers. Audits that result in the car’s not being in compliance should be handled similarly to the former Consumer Repair and Education Workforce program. The Bureau of Automotive Repair program did not fine the licensees nor did it involve coercion. But when the question of “what would you like to do?” was asked, the shop took care of business and usually elected to fix the car.

    The average smog check failure repair is about $ 150.00 state wide. The motorist pays about the same at the average repair station and the CAP station. The average CAP repair is about $350.00. Many cars are not brought into compliance.

    To level the smog check failure repair playing field so more cars meet standards after repair, the whole smog check market should be subject to a CAP random audit.

    Around 1985, BAR started a “missing part” audit. In 1991 that program was stopped, The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part.

    When BAR ran less than one audit per station per year, the result was a change in behavior that started at more than an 80 percent rate, but moved to less than 20 percent rate of noncompliance.

    The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part. If the CAP audit was addressing the issue of repair compliance rather than just finding a missing part, the results may be the same or a 300 percent improvement in compliance. With the missing part program, a follow-up audit with increasing demands lift the stations no options but to find the missing part or be removed from the game.

    There are huge inconsistencies from Smog Check station to station and with BAR representatives. For BAR to decide a car is not in compliance, rules of Smog Check must be clarified. Money is available for the CAP program. It can be used for contracted scrap and repairs, or some of the funds can be used to evaluate and support improved performance of licensed small business. The cars and funds are the same, but the results may be credit for 2,000 tons per day in pollution prevention credit in the State Implementation Plan, rather than our current credit of fewer than 400 tons per day.

    The governor and state Legislature would get the credit for improved performance. Performance improvements would be accomplished at a cost of less than $500.00 per ton. And program illusions would be reduced in 1 year.

    Charlie Peters is president of Clean Air Performance Professionals.

    CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796

  • Charlie Peters
  • amoucceem

    Just want to say what a great blog you got here!
    I’ve been around for quite a lot of time, but finally decided to show my appreciation of your work!

    Thumbs up, and keep it going!