GOP

Today we discuss probability, self-destruction and political bossism.

Wow. California, which is as blue as Lake Tahoe, is about to elect a Republican governor! How crazy is that?

Whoa. Hold up, pony. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

Well, there’s certainly a lot of Democratic angst out there.

That’s for sure. It’s reminiscent of the panic that followed Joe Biden’s wretched debate performance in Atlanta, the biggest disaster to hit the city since a 2009 flood caused more than half a billion dollars in damage.

In California, the high anxiety is a result of the state’s “jungle” primary, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party, with the top two finishers advancing to a November runoff. With so many Democrats running, there’s the genuine prospect of them splintering partisan support, resulting in the leading GOP candidates — Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton — grabbing both slots and moving past June 2.

How likely is that to happen?

I can’t say. And Nostradamus is away on spring break.

But one of California’s leading political savants, Paul Mitchell, has developed a helpful online tool to suss out the possibilities. Visitors to his site have run tens of thousands of simulations, which right now put the odds of a Democratic freeze-out at about 17% to 20%.

Which suggests it’s unlikely. But it’s also not impossible.

Why don’t some Democrats step aside, for the good of the party?

That’s easy for you to say.

Anyone putting themselves out there by seeking public office has to have a certain amount of faith, in both their capabilities and the prospect of good fortune smiling upon them. (Luck being a greatly undervalued factor in political success.)

To be clear, no one is running away with the gubernatorial contest. For all the talk of Republicans “leading” in the polls, it’s more like a four- or five-way tie for first place, when you factor in the margin of error. And 20% support — which is roughly what the top candidate receives in surveys — is hardly a number to strike fear in the heart of rivals.

There’s also the YOLO factor.

You mean the county just outside Sacramento?

No, that’s Yolo.

I mean, YOLO — as in You Only Live Once

Several of the candidates mired near the bottom of polls — Antonio Villaraigosa, Xavier Becerra, Betty Yee — are probably looking at the end of the line if they lose this race. So you can understand, if not necessarily agree with, their reluctance to drop out and call it a day, in the hope that, just maybe, that proverbial bolt of lightning will strike.

So why doesn’t someone force some candidates to drop out?

Like who? There is no Tammany Hall. This isn’t Chicago under Boss Daley. Modern-day California has never had that kind of all-powerful political machine.

The closest approximations were in San Francisco, where brothers Phil and John Burton held great sway, and Los Angeles, where another pair of siblings, Howard and Michael Berman, exercised enormous clout with their compatriot, Henry Waxman. But their influence was mainly limited to Congress, the Legislature and local politics. They weren’t kingmakers when it came to electing California governors.

And the two major political parties, which never wielded the power they enjoy in other states, have become even less influential in this entrepreneurial age of politics, when candidates raise their money online and boost their profile by going on the political chat shows on TV.

What about Gavin Newsom?

The governor could certainly try to pare the Democratic field. But he’d risk humiliating himself and hurting his presidential prospects in the process.

How so?

It would be embarrassing if Republicans were to seize the governorship on Newsom’s watch. (At least among those political insiders who pay attention to that kind of stuff.) It would also be embarrassing if the governor tried to muscle candidates aside and failed.

It’s not at all clear Newsom would have much clout. He isn’t particularly close to any of the candidates running. No one needed his blessing to enter the race, or his backing to sustain their candidacy. And there isn’t very much the term-limited governor, playing out his final months in office, can offer as incentive to quit.

Newsom also has to consider how it would look if he tried to ease out the laggards — whose ranks happen to include all the prominent candidates of color: Becerra, Villaraigosa, Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

We saw how that worked out for USC, which abruptly canceled a scheduled debate after a storm of criticism over its selection process and the exclusion of those four candidates.

Would Newsom care to veto Thurmond et al., then defend his actions in, say, South Carolina, where Black voters typically constitute more than half the Democratic primary electorate?

Sounds like Newsom doesn’t have many good options.

No.

Speaking of options, is there anything Democrats could do if they’re frozen out of the runoff?

Such as?

Waging a write-in campaign in the fall?

Nope. Under California law, write-in candidates are allowed only in the primary.

Hmm. How about a Democrat running as an independent?

Nope. Same rule applies. Only the two candidates getting the most votes in June will be on the November ballot.

So what can Democrats do?

Hope their voters consolidate around a single candidate, or either Bianco or Hilton pull far enough ahead with GOP voters that there’s room for a Democrat to make the top two.

Failing that, get ready for a Democratic-led recall campaign, beginning early in 2027.

WASHINGTON — As President Trump assembled his Cabinet last week, he asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to give an update on the Iran war.

Rubio, known for his hawkish views, gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and the world.

Vance, who has long pushed for restraint in U.S. military intervention overseas, was more sedate. He said that the U.S. now has “options” it didn’t have a year ago and that it is important Iran does not get a nuclear weapon — before redirecting his remarks toward wishing the troops a happy Easter.

The exchange was a distillation of their diverging postures toward the war that their boss has launched in Iran. And it comes as some would-be Republican presidential candidates begin quietly courting officials in key states like New Hampshire in the early stages of the GOP’s next nomination fight.

With Vance and Rubio seen as the party’s strongest potential candidates in a 2028 primary, the two have to balance their roles in the Trump administration with their future political plans.

“It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of “The American Conservative” magazine and a vocal critic of the war. The Cabinet meeting episode was telling, he said, because it seemed as though Vance, discussing Easter, was “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war.”

The White House addressed the Rubio-Vance relationship on Wednesday in an unsolicited statement after the initial publication of this article.

“President Trump has full confidence in both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, who continue to be trusted voices within the administration,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He values both the vice president and the secretary’s opinions and wealth of expertise.”

It’s too soon to forecast how Republican voters might feel about the war next spring, when the 2028 contest is expected to begin in earnest, but the risks for both Vance and Rubio are acute. Rubio’s full-throated support for the war could come back to haunt him depending on how the conflict develops. Vance, meanwhile, would risk accusations of disloyalty if he were to stray too far from Trump, but struggles to square an appearance of support for the war with his past comments.

Vance, who served in the Marines in the Iraq war, has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but he’s long been skeptical of foreign military interventions.

Trump seemed to allude that Vance may have held onto that position in private discussions about Iran, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” at the outset of the conflict.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump said.

Though Vance has been careful in how he speaks about the war, what he’s not saying has been conspicuous. On a March 13 trip to North Carolina, he was twice asked by reporters if he had concerns about the conflict. Each time, he said it was important that Trump could have conversations with advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

A few days later at the White House, when Vance was again asked if he had concerns, he accused the reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president.”

For Rubio, long before he became the country’s chief diplomat, he voiced support for muscular foreign policy and American intervention abroad.

Days into the war, he told reporters that it was “a wise decision” for Trump to launch the operation, that there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran and that the operation “needed to happen.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott pointed to last week’s Cabinet meeting as evidence that “the entire administration is in lockstep behind President Trump.”

“Secretary Rubio is proud to be on the team implementing President Trump’s policies, and he has a great relationship, both professionally and personally, with the entire team,” Pigott said.

Fractures are emerging in the GOP

The apparent split between Rubio and Vance on the Iran war is emblematic of the divide starting to cleave within the Republican Party. A recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found some divisions within the GOP on Iran, with about half of Republicans saying the U.S. military action has been “about right.” Relatively few Republicans, about 2 in 10, say military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

While some conservatives have described the war as a betrayal, many other Republicans have cheered on the president’s actions.

Alice Swanson, a 62-year-old who attended Vance’s event in North Carolina, said she wants Vance and Rubio to run together in 2028 but favors the vice president.

“I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said.

Swanson acknowledged, nonetheless, that Vance has been an outspoken opponent of interventionist policy but has been quieter on the subject since the war. “I can see both sides,” Swanson said after expressing full support for Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, a 62-year-old from Rocky Mount, spoke highly of Rubio, but declared, “I love JD Vance.”

She made it clear she sides with the president, calling the course he’s taken “spot on.” But she defended the vice president if he seems at odds with his past statements, noting politicians do it frequently. “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another,” she said.

However, Joe Ropar, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, said Rubio’s unequivocal support for the Iran war helped crystallize his preference for the secretary of state for 2028.

“I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” said Ropar, a 72-year-old retired military contractor from McKinney, Texas. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, of Austin, Texas, said at CPAC that both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war.” The 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty is looking elsewhere for a candidate.

The political risks might not be known until the field fills out

Whether the war becomes a political problem for Vance and Rubio depends on who ultimately enters the GOP’s next presidential primary.

While Vance and Rubio are currently considered the overwhelming front-runners, former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu expects a half dozen high-profile Republicans to enter the contest.

Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron told The Associated Press that multiple Republican presidential prospects have reached out to them in recent weeks to discuss the political landscape in the state that traditionally hosts the opening presidential primary; they declined to name them.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, a top New Hampshire adviser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, predicted that Iran would become a flashpoint in 2028 — just as the Iraq war was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

“If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Still, Sununu is doubtful that Iran would become a meaningful dividing line in a prospective Vance-Rubio matchup given their status as prominent members of the Trump administration. Both will likely take credit if the conflict ends well, and both would look bad if it does not, he predicted.

“They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu said.

Price and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Bill Barrow in Rocky Mount, N.C., and Thomas Beaumont in Grapevine, Texas, contributed to this report.

NASHUA, N.H. — The problem for Patrick J. Buchanan, the silver-tongued Republican who would be President, is people like George Anthes.

“It seems that Pat Buchanan has truly caught fire,” says Anthes, the king of talk radio at station WMVU, introducing the candidate to a listening audience of flinty New Englanders. “There seems to be a change brewing.”

And so Buchanan begins his spiel: The national polls–three of five in August–that peg him No. 2 behind Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas in the race for the GOP nomination. His recent endorsement by the Manchester Union Leader, the paper of record for New Hampshire’s hard-core conservatives. A credible showing in the recent Iowa straw poll–in his eyes, No. 3 with a bullet.

“We have crossed the threshold,” said a confident Buchanan, “of credibility and electability.”

Not so fast. Thirty minutes later, with the microphone off and the candidate heading quickly for the door, Anthes gets a little more honest. “I’d love to see Pat as President, but I have my doubts.” A pause. “He is picking up though.”

Well, sort of. Somehow, even when they suffer setbacks or fail to make headway in the polls, Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, ex-Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander and California Gov. Pete Wilson get taken seriously as potential nominees. Even when Buchanan is on a roll–like the one that fuels his hopes today–he is rarely accorded the same respect.

The reasons are plentiful. Buchanan rose to prominence as a commentator and author; although he ran for President in 1992, he has never won an elected office. He is an unabashed, uncompromising conservative, and thus a polarizing figure to many. And the disdain he does not hide for some in his own party has cut into his ability to raise money.

Buchanan and his followers are “outsiders, they’re populists,” said political analyst Kevin Phillips. “In terms of the Republican power elite, they’re not Buchananites. He could never be the nominee.”

Striving for Second

Buchanan, 56, is undeterred by such naysayers. And his quest, at least for now, is not to be No. 1, but to come in second in the early primaries and caucuses of 1996–a crucial three weeks, Buchanan contends, that will decide if he can raise the money to continue campaigning.

“I’ve got the resources to go three weeks,” said the candidate, who so far has raised about $3 million and spent an estimated $2.5 million. A bad showing in those crucial contests and contributions will dry up, leaving him at great disadvantage to his cushier competitors who have the money “to sustain the kinds of defeats I can’t.”

Indeed, as of June 30, in the most recent Federal Election Commission statistics available, Dole had raised $13.5 million and had $6.5 million cash on hand; Gramm had raised $16.8 million and had $7.3 million left.

Dole’s and Gramm’s years in public office have given them extensive lists of big-money campaign donors. Buchanan, on the other hand, appeals to ideologically inspired small donors and reports an average contribution of less than $40. “We are appealing to the grass-roots,” said K. B. Forbes, Buchanan’s deputy press secretary.

Buchanan is struggling mightily to claim the crown of true conservative in a crowded field of candidates, to fuse together the disaffected, the religious, the working class, Ross Perot voters, gun owners, the Christian Coalition. He is striving to be second.

“Dole might be ahead of me,” Buchanan contended, “but then the conservatives will say: ‘It’s Buchanan or Dole.’ If they say that, then I can beat Bob Dole.”

Hanging over the upbeat campaign for the past month was the ill health of Buchanan’s mother, Catherine, 83, who was injured in a fall. She died Monday, and Buchanan headed home from a campaign swing in the West.

One recent Sunday morning, he could be found striding into Washington’s National Airport, fresh from a hand-clapping, foot-stomping success at the Christian Coalition’s annual meeting. He was armed with a newspaper and briefcase, garbed in the politician’s standard-issue blue suit. He was headed to New Hampshire for three days of campaigning. No one paid a bit of attention.

This is the conservative made famous by his 1992 declaration of a cultural war “for the soul of America,” a battle that he will likely wage as long as he can breathe–and talk.

“Have you read that U.N. report?” he asked supporters at a Republican town hall meeting in New Hampshire later the same day. “They say there aren’t two sexes, there are five genders.”

He paused for laughter, warmed to his crowd and continued: “They started with heterosexual; I followed them there. They went on to homosexual; I was slowing down. They said transsexual, that’s the third one. I don’t understand the last two. I tell you this: God created man and woman, I don’t care what Bella Abzug says.”

In the circles Buchanan travels, that one always goes over well. So do his stands on affirmative action (against), abortion (vehemently against), the death penalty (oh, yes), the Department of Education (oh, no).

He would bury the North American Free Trade Agreement and erect an ideological wall around the nation to rival the actual wall he would build along the U.S. border with Mexico. No more foreign aid, no more global free trade. In Buchanan’s brand of economic nationalism, “we must stop sacrificing American jobs on the altar of transnational corporations.”

And he would tell the nation about his economic platform, unveiled in a recent Wall Street Journal essay, if only people would tear their attention away from his stand on social issues. His program, he contends, will make America “the enterprise zone for the entire industrialized Western world.”

The highlights: A flat tax on personal income. A flat tax for big corporations. A much lower tax for small ones. No more inheritance tax on family businesses and family farms. He will pay for the plan with a 10% tariff on Japanese imports and a 20% tariff on Chinese goods.

In New Hampshire, with its recent memory of economic privation, of local industries fleeing oversees, the Buchanan plan resonates.

Norma Moreau, 38, stands in front of Martha’s Exchange restaurant and brew pub here in Nashua, waiting for a friend so they can map out the future of her small-business career. Moreau said that she is likely to cast her ballot for Buchanan, even though she disagrees with his rock-solid stand against abortion. Everything else, she says, she likes–particularly the tariffs.

“I think there should be tariffs put on anything from another country,” said the owner of Imprints Ink, a struggling silk-screening firm. “We have to protect our own jobs. All we do is help other countries. Why don’t we take the money and help the United States?”

She has too many friends who have lost their jobs, run out of unemployment assistance, lost their homes. “It’s sad,” she said.

Familiar Territory

Buchanan used this New Hampshire despair, coupled with Republican anger at the 1991 tax increase shepherded by then-President George Bush, to garner an unimaginable 37% of the vote in the 1992 GOP primary here.

He still considers the region his, with its picket fences, clapboard houses, and guys named Charlie who wear shirts and ties when they go to work pumping gas at the local Shell station.

People here still smoke in restaurants; adults are not required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. The state motto is, “Live Free or Die.”

At St. Marie Parish in industrial Manchester, where Buchanan took in Sunday Mass, the homily began with a tale about how burdensome laws in New York City required Mother Teresa to install an elevator for the handicapped in her refurbished community center. The result, according to the priest: She left.

“I notice Pat Buchanan is here,” said Father Marc Montminy to great applause. “Welcome in our midst.”

Charles M. Arlinghaus, executive director of New Hampshire’s Republican State Committee, contends that the race here is still wide open and that Buchanan still has a shot. “Anyone could win New Hampshire,” he said, “with a couple of exceptions I won’t name.”

Phillips concedes that Buchanan was underestimated in New Hampshire in 1992.

But the author of the American Political Report figures that a GOP presidential nomination for the conservative commentator and author is “unlikely.” Chances are, Phillips says, Buchanan will not even win 25% of the vote in the upcoming New Hampshire primary.

“I think 25% would be doing very well,” Phillips said. “It would probably put him second place, clearly put him third. He does have a chance of going that high. On the other hand, the chance of Pat lasting with a lot of pep into March is not very good. He doesn’t have the budget.”

But the lengthy race to choose a President is still in its very early stages, as was painfully evident as Buchanan campaigned in Concord Sept. 11.

Performing the mandatory New Hampshire dance of meet and greet the voters, he introduced himself to Bea McGinnis, 76, a loyal Republican, shook her hand and went on his way. And who does McGinnis like in the Republican race? “Well, you got Bill Wilson, running, right? He’s a Republican. And I like John over there,” she said, glancing at Buchanan’s receding back. “That’s his name, right?”

La Ganga reported this story while on assignment in New Hampshire.

Stu Spencer, guru of political gurus, towed three old Latino buddies to the side at his annual holiday party. “Here, listen to these guys,” he said. “You don’t need to quote me.” Minutes later he returned with another, and then another. “They’ll tell ya. . . . Hey Manuel, don’t talk his ear off.”

Manuel Hidalgo, 67, East Los Angeles attorney. Frank Veiga, 59, East Los Angeles mortician. Albert Zapanta, 55, executive vice president of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. . . .

All had one thing in common besides their Mexican ancestry. They’re lifelong California Republicans who are disenchanted with their party. Not just disappointed and discouraged, but downright disgusted.

“I like the [Republican] philosophy, but they don’t like me,” Hidalgo said. “I like ‘em, but I can’t go to the party.”

Zapanta: “The party has too much of a bigot streak in it. And that’s 25 years of Republican activism talking.”

They’ve been working up to this point for years. Proposition 187 pushed them to the edge. Proposition 209 was one more boot. In their view, the policies were bad enough–taking public services from illegal immigrants and dismantling race-based affirmative action. Much worse was the politics.

“187 was racist, bigoted,” said Veiga. “Who’d you see in the ads?”

Not Russians or Asians, he and his friends noted. TV viewers saw Mexicans streaming across the border and were told, in ominous tones, that “they keep coming.” Latinos–even third-generation Americans–saw Republican fingers pointed at them. This year, again, GOP ads pointed to brown skins.

And Latino fingers pointed back–particularly at Gov. Pete Wilson, the wizard of wedge.

“We’ve lost a lot of respect for him,” Veiga said. Added Zapanta: “Pete’s a big boy. He knows what he’s doing.”

*

Playing the race card?

“Pete does not play the race card,” Spencer insisted. “He just got to the point where he believes [the policy].”

Spencer has been a Wilson loyalist for 30-plus years. He won’t criticize him personally. But he does think that the governor’s 187 ads, in the heat of a reelection campaign, “scared the hell out of” Latinos. “The fallout’s going to be around for awhile.”

In fact, Spencer said the dubious duo of 187 and immigrant bashing by conservatives nationally could drive Latinos away from the GOP en masse–just as blacks aligned solidly with Democrats during FDR’s New Deal and, later, the civil rights movement.

Rather than pushing punitive 187, asserted the guru and his Latino buddies, the GOP merely should have attacked President Clinton for neither enforcing the border nor reimbursing the state for its illegal immigrant costs.

Republicans paid the price in last month’s elections. How much of that price is directly attributable to the state ballot props and the Buchanan-style immigrant bashing is only speculative. But clearly it’s substantial.

We do know, according to The Times’ exit polling, that the Latino slice of the California vote jumped 43% between 1992 and 1996, to 10% of the total. In 1992, 51% of Latinos voted for Clinton; this year, 75% did.

Latinos apparently tipped the balance in several legislative and congressional races. A record 14 Latinos were elected to the Assembly, which then elected its first Latino speaker, Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno).

Bustamante attended Spencer’s party Tuesday night.

*

Pundits and pols everywhere have been expounding on the growing muscle of Latinos. But Spencer has been doing it for decades, mostly to plugged ears.

Although he could steer Ronald Reagan to the governor’s office and the White House and help elect countless other candidates, Spencer has struck out trying to persuade Republicans to focus on Latinos.

“I keep losing every battle,” he lamented. “They don’t get it.”

Spencer, 69, cut his political teeth in East L.A. in the 1950s, organizing Mexican Americans for the party. In the early ‘60s, he opened a community “service center”–precursor to a would-be political machine–and “handed out goodies” like free polio shots. But the GOP shut it down when he left.

“We never have taken advantage of our patronage–judgeships, commissions. You’ve got to get people active and reward them. You’ve got to look at the figures and see that the future of this state is going to be determined by Mexicans. We don’t have to change our basic message–get government off our back, low taxation, family values. . . .

“But I’m past that point. There’s got to be a young Stu Spencer out there somewhere who understands it.”

SACRAMENTO — California has a huge deficit, a looming cash crisis, an angry public and pressure to raise taxes — and in this dismal state of affairs, the state’s minority Republicans see opportunity.

GOP lawmakers hope to use their leverage over the state budget, which cannot pass without some of their votes, to roll back landmark policies implemented by Democrats and the governor. Among them are curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, regulations banning the dirtiest diesel engines and rules dictating when employers must provide lunch breaks for workers.

None of those laws has any direct connection to the state budget; changing them will do nothing to close California’s $15.2-billion deficit. And the Democrats who control the Legislature already have rejected Republican proposals to delay or eliminate the laws through the regular legislative process.

But as pressure mounts on lawmakers to resolve the budget crisis, the GOP’s renewed requests could get some traction. Republican clout grows along with the state’s financial problems — at least during the summer budget season.

“We think the budget is an appropriate place to talk about these issues,” said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). “We are setting them on the table for discussion.”

Runner acknowledges that the proposals won’t help balance the books in the coming fiscal year, but he argues that they would stimulate the economy and thus generate cash for the state over time.

“They are reasonable issues to bring up” now, he said.

Lawmakers are making little progress in those negotiations. Legislators did not meet their June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget, and they are saying publicly that a spending plan is unlikely to be in place by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

The state will run out of cash in September, according to the state treasurer, and finance officials say that borrowing to remain solvent will be extremely tough without a budget in place by July. Securing a loan takes time, and lenders look for an enacted budget as assurance that the state will have enough cash to repay them.

Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for as much as $11.5 billion in new taxes — though they have not specified what they want to tax.

Republicans say cuts in government services and programs are the way to go — though they, too, mostly demur when it comes to specifics.

Republicans have made clear, however, that relaxing the environmental and labor laws would put them in more of a mood to compromise. That position has drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats and activists.

“Using a fiscal crisis to delay and roll back protections for Californians is just wrong,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).

Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern called the GOP lawmakers “a dwindling minority trying to exploit the limited leverage they have.”

Environmentalists are particularly outraged by the Republican call for a delay in the curbs on greenhouse emissions.

The global warming measure is one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proudest accomplishments. It has landed the governor, himself a Republican, on the covers of magazines around the world.

State officials are drafting rules for implementing the emissions caps, which are scheduled to take effect in January 2010. GOP legislators say complying with the rules will be costly for businesses at a time when they already are reeling from the poor economy and higher oil prices.

They want the governor to exercise a provision in the law that allows him to postpone implementation by declaring that it would cause the state “significant economic harm.”

“We’ve got a major downturn in the economy,” said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, leader of the state Senate’s Republicans. “We’re trying to convince the governor to give us more time on this.”

Republicans are making the same case for new rules requiring retrofitting of diesel engines on trucks, tractors and heavy construction equipment. The engines are a leading source of pollution and have been singled out by scientists as a cause of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory problems in California each year.

Supporters of the laws say that the sickness they will prevent and the boost they will give to “green” technologies promise to be far more helpful to California’s economy than a delay in their implementation.

Schwarzenegger has said through aides that he does not wish to postpone environmental regulations and won’t let the budget situation sidetrack his long-term goals. But he also says nothing is off the table.

“We have open doors where everything is on the table,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech last month to the California Peace Officers Assn. “I don’t want to go and say to anything, ‘No.’ ”

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor is interested, for example, in working with Republicans on a relaxation of workplace rules that dictate when employees must be granted lunch breaks.

The governor, an ally of the state Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, is sympathetic to complaints from business owners that some workplace rules cost them money without benefiting employees.

The example most often cited comes from restaurant owners who say they must give their workers breaks at particular times, even if it is in the middle of the busiest shift, when many would rather be working tables to collect tips.

The Legislature must sign off on changes to such laws, something Democrats say they have no intention of doing. Their labor allies say budget season is a cynical time to raise the issue.

“If these were viable policy proposals, they would pass on their own merits,” said Emily Clayton, policy coordinator with the California Labor Federation.

Republicans, she said, “are trying to hold the budget negotiations hostage.”

—

evan.halper@latimes.com

Joyce Anderson Valdez, major fund-raiser for Republican politicians including three former presidents and two former California governors who was respected professionally and revered personally for her tenacity and charm, has died. She was 70.

Valdez, who served as state GOP finance director for many years, died Wednesday at her Arcadia home after a long illness.

Pete Wilson, who benefited from Valdez’s expertise in his campaigns for both the U.S. Senate and California governor, considered her a longtime close friend.

“With the exception of Ronald Reagan, Joyce Valdez is probably responsible for more of the successes of the Republican Party in California than anyone else in history,” Wilson said in a statement after her death. “She never had an event that wasn’t a huge success because she simply refused to accept failure.”

He ended his accolade warmly: “She lightened our hearts as she lightened our pockets. Advice to St. Peter: Don’t even try to hang onto your wallet. With Joyce’s energy and charm, you don’t have a chance!”

When major donors reversed the tables and threw a salutary black-tie dinner for Valdez at Jimmy’s in 1985, Interior Department Western representative Carol Hallett telegraphed knowingly: “When Joyce gives the last supper, you can be sure she’ll have a cash bar.”

From the early 1960s to mid-1980s, the effervescent Valdez organized dinners and other events that raised more than $100 million for Republican candidates, among them Presidents Reagan, Gerald Ford and George Bush and Govs. Wilson and George Deukmejian. Many considered her the party’s best fund-raiser not only in California but nationwide.

Not all of her candidates were successful, even with the money she funneled to their campaign coffers. Among those were GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole and Senate candidate Ed Zschau.

Occasionally, Valdez lent her talents to favored Democrats for “nonpartisan” offices such as Los Angeles City Council members John Ferraro and Joan Milke Flores. She also raised campaign money at the local level for the late Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block.

Valdez told The Times in 1982 that she often relied on celebrity guests to attract paying supporters to her fund-raising dinners, cocktail parties or coffees.

“There are so many fund-raising events, and people get so tired of going out night after night,” she said. “A star will draw them out to actually attend the event.”

Frank Sinatra was a favorite, she said, and Wayne Newton, and especially her longtime friend Ronald Reagan.

“The prez looks like a Supreme Court justice all of a sudden–very distinguished,” she said proudly in late 1989 when she booked him as centerpiece for a dinner that netted Wilson $700,000.

When he was governor, Reagan appointed Valdez as a commissioner of the state’s Industrial Welfare Board. She had also helped Block set up his Sheriff’s Youth Foundation and served on its board.

Born in Supreme, Ala., Valdez lived much of her adult life in the Los Angeles area, where she became a nationally top-ranked amateur golfer.

Valdez, widowed by the death of her husband of 48 years, Frank Valdez, is survived by four children, Dennis Valdez, Valinda VanderWerff, Vicky Vangeison and Valerie Iida; a brother, Monte Anderson; three sisters, JoAnn Scott, Vivian Whitaker and Gloria Alerich, and 10 grandchildren.

Services are scheduled at 11 a.m. today at Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.

The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”

“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”

According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.

The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.

President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.

Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.

Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.

Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.

A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.

Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.

A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.

In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.

The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.

Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”

The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.

Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”

Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.

“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.

In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.

“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”

At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”

A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.

In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”

WASHINGTON — Anti-Muslim rhetoric from some Republicans in Congress intensified this week against the backdrop of the Iran war, with several lawmakers — including one who said that “Muslims don’t belong in American society” — drawing condemnation from Democrats but little response from GOP leaders.

The derogatory language has been percolating among Republican officials for months, often prominent when criticizing New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is Muslim. But against the backdrop of the Iran war, a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, and attacks at a synagogue in Michigan and a college in Virginia, the tone sharpened this week.

“The enemy is inside our gates,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama wrote Thursday in response to a photo of Mamdani sitting on the ground during an iftar dinner at New York City Hall. The photo was juxtaposed with a picture of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Hours later, Tuberville added: “To be clear, I didn’t ‘suggest’ Islamists are the enemy. I said it plainly.”

The rhetoric intensified Friday as GOP lawmakers responded to the attacks in Michigan and Virginia by urging a halt to all immigration into the United States. Some singled out Muslims specifically.

For many Muslims, it’s a political moment that carries echoes from the early 2000s, when the Sept. 11 attacks and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars generated hostility toward Muslim communities in the United States, often accompanied by discrimination and racist violence.

“When members of Congress speak, it’s not just words,” said Iman Awad, the national director for policy and advocacy for the Muslim American advocacy group Emgage Action. “It shapes public perception. It legitimizes prejudice.”

GOP rhetoric targeting Muslims spreads online

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) in his social media post stated flatly that Muslims don’t belong in the United States. He stood behind it after criticism mounted, later writing that “paperwork doesn’t magically make you American” and that “Muslims are unable to assimilate; they all have to go back.”

Asked about Ogles’ post Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he had spoken to members “about our tone and our message and what we say.” He said Ogles used “different language than I would use,” but added that he believes the issue raised by the comments is “serious.”

“There’s a lot of energy in the country, and a lot of popular sentiment that the demand to impose sharia law in America is a serious problem,” Johnson said. “That’s what animates this.”

Sharia is a religious framework that guides many Muslims’ moral and spiritual conduct. References to “sharia law” have often been invoked by officials to suggest Muslims are attempting to impose religious practices on communities in the United States.

Many Republicans point to a Muslim-centered planned community near Dallas as proof of “sharia law” — though the developers have denied the allegations and said they are being targeted only because they are Muslim.

With Johnson not condemning Ogles’ remarks — or recent comments from Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) that “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one” — the anti-Muslim rhetoric grew louder. After the photo circulated of Mamdani at the iftar dinner, several Republicans responded with critical posts.

Democrats broadly condemned the Republican messages. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the leader of Senate Democrats, called Tuberville’s post “mindless hate.”

“Islamophobic hate like this is fundamentally un-American and we must confront and overcome it whenever it rears its ugly head,” Schumer said.

Mamdani — in response to Tuberville’s post that “the enemy is inside our gates” — said: “Let there be as much outrage from politicians in Washington when kids go hungry as there is when I break bread with New Yorkers.”

Attacks in Michigan and Virginia spark more rhetoric

Federal officials identified a man who rammed his vehicle into a hallway at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Mich., this week as a naturalized citizen born in Lebanon. Officials have said that the man — who was killed by security guards at the temple — had lost four family members in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon during the ongoing war in the Middle East, just after sunset as they were having their fast-breaking meal during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

In Virginia, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh opened fire in a classroom at Old Dominion University before ROTC students subdued and killed him. Court documents showed that he had served time for attempting to aid the militant group Islamic State and was released less than two years ago.

Some Republican lawmakers claimed vindication for their views. Others pushed for legislation. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the House Republican whip, said that “the security of our nation hinges on our ability to denaturalize and deport terrorists.”

Rep. Riley M. Moore (R-W.Va.) said he would introduce a bill to denaturalize and deport any naturalized citizen who “commits an act of terrorism, plots to commit an act of terrorism, joins a terrorist organization or otherwise aids and abets terrorism against the American people.”

Similar rhetoric and policy efforts have surfaced before and stoked controversy. Protesters connected to demonstrations in recent years over the Israel-Hamas war were arrested and targeted by authorities, including former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist the government has sought to detain and deport.

Mamdani responds

Middle East conflicts bringing domestic tensions is nothing new. With the war in Gaza, both Muslim and Jewish communities have faced faith-based discrimination and attacks.

Mamdani said the posts invoking the 9/11 attacks are problematic not just because of the words, but because of “the actions that often accompany them.”

“I think too of the smaller indignities, the indignities that many New Yorkers face, but that Muslims are expected to face in silence,” the mayor said. “Of the exhaustion of having to explain yourself to those who are not interested in understanding. Of the men who introduce themselves by their given name only to be called Muhammad for years on end.”

The stark silence from Republican leaders, including President Trump, reflects a broader change in the party. After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, Republican President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington to explicitly warn against Muslim discrimination.

“America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country,” Bush said during the visit, adding: “They need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

“Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior,” Bush said.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

March 7 (UPI) — Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., announced he is retiring at the end of his term and put his support behind San Diego Supervisor Jim Desmond.

Issa issued a statement Friday on social media saying he will not be seeking re-election in this year’s midterm elections.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa wrote. “First, we built the right campaign infrastructure, support has been overwhelming — including from President Trump — and our polling was unmistakable: We would win this race. But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it”s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Issa offered his “enthusiastic endorsement” to San Diego Supervisor Jim Desmond, who filed to run for Issa’s seat on Friday.

The announcement comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s ballot measure to redraw state congressional districts, which passed in November, transformed Issa’s district from safely Republican to an area more friendly to Democrats.

Issa had previously been rumored to be considering a run for Congress in Texas, but he told Fox News in December that the plan would not be going forward.

“I’m thrilled to set the record straight and here’s the truth: Texas House members and residents of that state did ask if I would consider running there following Gavin Newsom’s historically corrupt gerrymander,” he said at the time. “I appreciate the opportunity, but California is my home. I told them I’m going to stay in Congress, and I don’t need to go to Texas for that.”

Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, celebrated the news of Issa’s retirement in a statement.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance. Issa abandoning his voters now is the clearest sign yet that Republicans know he can’t win on his record of skyrocketing prices, gutting health care, and looking out for himself and wealthy special interests above all else,” Elsasser said. “Any Republican who tries to parachute into this race with the same extreme agenda will face the same fate.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, praising Issa for his “decades of dedicated service” in a statement provided to Politico.

“We are optimistic that this district will continue to be represented by a Republican who will stand for common sense and reject the radical agenda and chaos that progressive Marni von Wilpert and socialist Ammar Campa-Najjar would bring,” Martinez said.

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas said late Thursday he was withdrawing from his reelection race, after having admitted an affair with a former staff member who later died by suicide, but he vowed to finish out his term in Congress.

He had faced calls from GOP leadership to end his reelection bid, and from others in Congress to resign.

“After deep reflection and with the support of my loving family, I have decided not to seek re-election,” Gonzales said in a statement posted late Thursday to X.

The move is the latest in a quickly changing situation that stunned Capitol Hill and resulted in a House Ethics Committee investigation into his conduct. Gonzales’ decision to bow out of the race appears to clear the field. On Tuesday, he had been forced into a May runoff against Brandon Herrera, a gun manufacturer and YouTube gun-rights influencer who narrowly lost to him in the 2024 primary.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP leadership earlier Thursday had called on Gonzales to withdraw from reelection after Gonzales, a day earlier, acknowledged a relationship that has upturned the political world in his home state and in Washington.

“We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues,” said Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Whip Tom Emmer, and GOP Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain in a statement.

“In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for reelection.”

Johnson, R-La., has been under enormous pressure from his own GOP lawmakers to take action, and several Republicans have already called for Gonzales to step aside. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., has introduced two resolutions to punish Gonzales. The first seeks to remove him from his assignments on the House Appropriations and Homeland Security committees, while the second seeks to censure him.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, meanwhile, said he would support expelling Gonzales from the House, a rare step that requires a two-thirds vote from the chamber.

GOP leaders notably did not call for Gonzales to resign from office as they struggle to maintain their slim majority in the House, which they hold by only a handful of seats.

Their move came after Gonzales, appearing on the “Joe Pags Show,” was asked whether he had a relationship with the aide, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles.

Santos-Aviles, 35, died after setting herself on fire in the backyard of her home in Uvalde, Texas. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death a suicide.

“I made a mistake and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales said.

The congressman, now in his third term, had said he would not step down in response to the allegations, telling reporters recently that there will be opportunities for all the details and facts to come out.

Gonzales, a father of six, first won his seat in 2020 after retiring from a 20-year career in the Navy that included time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the interview broadcast Wednesday, Gonzales said he had not spoken to Santos-Aviles since June 2024. She died in September 2025.

“I had absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing, and in fact, I was shocked just as much as everyone else,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales went on to say he had reconciled with his wife, Angel, and has asked God to forgive him. He also said he looked forward to the Ethics Committee investigation.

Johnson and GOP leadership urged that committee to “act expeditiously.”

Under House ethics rules, lawmakers may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House under their supervision.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press.