California Recall

This quote from the Sacramento Bee is interesting:

Tom McClintock’s performance reminded me of the old line that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to worry about keeping your stories straight. Whatever you might think of him and his ideas, it can't be said that McClintock trims his sails to match his audience. This is a man who knows what he believes and isn't going to be shaken from it. He also knows how to say it in 60 seconds if that is what you give him, or 30, or even 15. He distinguished himself as a conservative’s conservative, on everything from taxes to abortion, the death penalty, immigration and the environment. I still don’t think he’s in the mainstream of the electorate, but he has the look of a guy who is willing to wait for the rest of us to figure out what he’s known all along.

Makes it sound like Tom McClintock's campaign should be this yrar's version of the Straight Talk Express. But i notice that reporters are not writing fawning stories about this honest, forthright politician.

McClintock is not getting the McCain treatment because McClintock is not breaking with conservative principles or attacking the Republican base. Journalists might claim they value straight talk but they seem to recognize it only when it supports their ideological predilections.

This comment by Peter Robinson in the Corner confirms that recall will hurt conservatives under almost all probable outcomes

He also included this observation:

The first possibility, a McClintock victory, just ain't in the books. Even though we face a mere four weeks until the election, it'll cost upward of $10 million to mount a creditable campaign. I don't know a soul in California politics who expects McClintock to raise more than $3 million.

This obsession with money-raising ability is pernicious and stupid. Political consultants love the idea because well-funded candidates have a lot of money to spend on media advisors and political strategists. And, at some point, a lack of funds can cripple a candidacy.

But--

1. A good candidate can often overcome a spending imbalance (Wellstone did in Minnesota, Diane Feinstein overcame Michael Huffington's millions) and a great fundraiser can fail abysmally (John Connolly). If money was all that mattered, Nelson Rockefeller would have beaten Goldwater in 1964.

2. Focusing on campaign budgets creates an invisible primary that eliminates candidates based on "insiders's" assessments of "viability.."

3. Campaign contributions are often driven by pragmatic considerations. A candidate who moves up in the polls suddenly finds that it is easier to raise money.

4. Money matters primarily because it buys television advertising. But TV advertising is of declining importance and is more affordable in many ways than it was thirty years ago.

ASIDE: Maybe some Bill James-influenced journalist should take a look at money and politics and come up with some new ways of keeping score. How about a Wellstone-Huffington Index. At one end, a man who connects with the voter despite limited funds, at the other, a poseur trying (unsuccessfully) to buy a seat. This could be used during the campaign to evaluate polling results and trends.

And, maybe, we could come up with stats on consultants-- find out who earns their fees.