ScottPeters.com
Former City Council member and current Port Commissioner Scott Peters tries to sell his candidacy, but his argument leaves behind more doubts than assurances.
When our intrepid Editordude asked if I would cover the Ocean Beach Planning Board meeting last Wednesday night and I found out that Scott Peters was coming to speak, I have to admit that I was pretty excited. (Yeah, I know…..I’m pathetic, but whatever.) I really didn’t know much of anything about Peters, and this was my first chance to form some sort of impression of him heading into the June primary.
He was there for two purposes: As Port Commissioner to talk to the planning board and those in attendance about the good things happening along the San Diego waterfront. And there are some good things (chronicled here). Perhaps more importantly, though, he was there to talk about his bid for the redrawn 52nd District Congressional seat, which includes Ocean Beach.
Scott Peters isn’t your stereotypical Democrat. In fact, at first glance it’s rather tough not to be convinced that he’s a Republican, despite his background as an environmental lawyer. He does live in La Jolla, after all…….with his neighbor Mitt Romney.
Peters comes across as a very reasonable guy. His policy positions are very much middle of the road but leaning Democratic: He laments the lack of focus on transportation issues in Congress, pointing to the emphasis last summer on the debt ceiling and not on issues that will “move the country forward.” Congress’ actions, he says, led to the US credit rating being downgraded for the first time in history.
“There is no discussion on the future of America in Congress right now,” he said. “We need to be making investments in America that are going to keep us competitive and give people a chance.” Innovators, he said, are starting their businesses in China and India instead of the United States due to the lack of investment in our own economy.
He criticized his incumbent opponent Brian Bilbray for his stance on immigration, among other issues. According to Bilbray, he says, “Unless you deport all 11 million undocumented people, then that’s amnesty.” He skewered Bilbray for his vote to defund Planned Parenthood as part of a budget bill in Congress, and for “reinterpreting the Constitution” with regards to “anchor babies.” Bilbray wants to deport all US born children of undocumented immigrants despite the fact that they’re citizens under the Constitution.
The new district, he says, is 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 Independent. “The way to beat Brian is not just to have Democrats, but it’s to have independents.”
His positions are very reasonable, very logical, and for the most part supported by Democrats. But it’s when he begins to speak about his moderate appeal, about how well he has been able to work in the past with “the other side” that his argument begins to fall flat: “I would try to be as bipartisan as possible, try to establish relationships across the aisle” he says. “My approach is a problem solving approach.”
Sure he’s been able to work cooperatively with San Diego Republicans such as Dick Murphy, Jerry Sanders, and City Councilman Kevin Faulconer. But San Diego Republicans are not Congressional Republicans, and to hear him speak about how he’ll be able to work with Speaker John Boehner and Eric Cantor’s crew reveals a complete lack of awareness of what’s actually happening with Republicans in Washington. As if he, Scott Peters, is the Democratic White Knight that’s going to ride into the Capitol and miraculously bridge the ever growing divide between the two parties. He assumes that Congressional Republicans are reasonable people, when the truth is that there’s very little that’s reasonable about them.
House of Representatives party dispersion; Voteview.com
In a collaborative study conducted by political science professors from UCLA, the University of Georgia, and NYU, over the last 30 years Republicans in Congress and the Senate have moved more and more to the right, while Democrats have remained for the most part on a level plane. Democrats still hold to the same ideals they did 30 years ago, while Republicans have become more and more radically conservative. With the arrival of TEA Party freshmen in 2010, the divide has only gotten worse.
Moderate Republicans in the House and Senate are virtually an extinct breed. Because of it the environment in Congress has become so toxic that it’s approaching impossible for the two sides to work together.
Senate Party Dispersion; Voteview.com
When challenged directly on this point and asked (by yours truly) how he, Scott Peters, expected to go into Congress and suddenly right what ills Congress, his response was effectively Well, I have a history of working together with Republicans to get things done. When asked again (by yours truly) why he of all people would succeed where everyone else in the last three years has failed to be able to work with Congressional Republicans, including President Obama who went out of his way to negotiate numerous deals with Boehner and Co., only to ultimately be completely rejected each and every time, and is now taking heat from the left for being too conciliatory toward Republicans, his answer was basically the same: That he has a record of solving problems. He even went so far as to criticize Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that the only way to solve the partisan gridlock is to “elect more Democrats.”
“We need people in Congress that can make things happen and get things done.” And Scott Peters wants us to know that he’s that guy.
What his responses show are either an incredible arrogance or a stunning naiveté. Arrogance in that he seems to expect that due to his charm and willingness to “reach across the aisle” that suddenly all Republicans in Congress will be thrilled to work with him where they’ve refused to work with anyone else with a ‘D’ attached to their name. Naiveté in that he does not seem to comprehend what is really going on in Congress these days and how deliberately partisan the dealings have been on the part of Boehner and Co.
Now, Scott Peters seems like a really good guy. He seems like he really means well and that in his own way he will work hard to best represent the interests of the people who would elect him. But his approach is a weak one. These Republicans are not going to suddenly have a change of heart and become more moderate. Look at the graphs. What do they tell you? (Click on the graphs to enlarge them)
Policies that Republicans touted less than 10 years ago are now considered a “socialist conspiracy.” Policies like a health care mandate which was first proposed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation in 1993 and put into practice by Mitt Romney. Cap and trade was a Republican idea that is now considered a “job crushing burden” on American employers. The START treaty with Russia, first negotiated in the 80’s by that notorious liberal Ronald Reagan and aimed at reducing the number of nuclear warheads, used to be a non-controversial goal that was near unanimously supported by both parties, but is now seen as a weakening of our defenses and kow-towing to the Russians.
There is no negotiating with these people. They would rather hold America hostage until they achieve absolute power. You simply cannot negotiate with terrorists. To these people compromise is tantamount to high treason punishable by career execution.
The only thing that Peters would accomplish with his conciliatory ways is to become more radically conservative himself.
Nancy Pelosi is right. The only way to change things in Washington is to soundly rout Republicans at the polls in November (and probably in the next two or three elections too). Beat them so badly that they are either forced to become more moderate in order to achieve a broader appeal, or that the more reasonable among their ranks split to form a viable third party, leaving the GOP to wither.
Democrats must stand for their principles and fight back for a change. We’ve tried it Scott Peters’ way since 2006. It hasn’t worked. And it won’t work. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior over and over again and expecting different results. What Scott Peters is proposing is for insanity to continue to reign. And if that’s the case, we might as well just re-elect Brian Bilbray.
Now I just have to hear what the other major Democratic challenger, Lori Saldaña, has to say. She’ll talk to the planning board next month.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I’d vote for him if his water bill was lower.
Actually, no, I wouldn’t.
I thought about trying to fit that into the post, but decided that it just wouldn’t work. Pretty funny/ironic story, though: An environmental lawyer with outrageous water bills.
Good job, Andy. I’m looking forward to the Saldana article. I’ve met her a couple of times and was real impressed with her. She’s a credible candidate, except that she doesn’t have Peter’s “resources”, i.e., connections to the local elite.
I got a chance to talk to her for a good while during last year’s OB Street Fair when she was still only pondering a run for Congress. I liked her. I think she’s got the goods, but I’ll hold final judgment on that for now. Under ordinary circumstances I’d say that Peters would probably be a good choice too, but these are not ordinary circumstances.
Agree with all your points here, Andy. And I particularly enjoyed your back-and-forth with Peters on Wednesday, even if his insistence that he’d be able to be an effective moderate in a highly polarized world wasn’t exactly confidence inspiring. If a solid bloc of true moderates actually existed and contained at least a significant number of members from both parties, he might make a good fit – absent that, any talk of “reaching across the aisle” tends to come across as sound bite-friendly fluff that invites skepticism from the people who’ve been paying attention for the last decade.
That said, I look forward both to hearing Saldaña weigh in next month, and hope she can bring something with more substance than her polling numbers and endorsements to the discussion. I’ll also keep watching Peters, as I’m guessing he’ll grow from this week’s experience and will be a little more polished next go-round. Although that doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll have a better plan for being bipartisan in a world of partisan hackery.
I’ll be there next month. I’m really curious to see the contrast between the two candidates first hand. I have to say, though, I was pretty astonished at how disconnected from reality Peters seemed in his responses. He thinks his approach is a way to “get things done,” and that may have been true in the San Diego political environment. But it’s a sure path to getting NOTHING done in DC, making yourself look rather weak and ineffective in the process.
I would be interested to know who Ms. Frye supports. If my memory is correct, during city council meetings Mr. Peters didn’t give Ms. Frye the time of day…it appeared to me he felt threatened by Frye’s knowledge or desire to get answers to questions (she was his Pain the in the Butt). His superior attitude isn’t my thing and therefore; I couldn’t support this man for any public position.
it’s my recollection that donna has endorsed lori saldana
Thanks for clarifying where Peter’s stands. I have been watching signs going up for him in the neighborhood – in fact I spotted one at a former City Council members’ house, only to find that it is no longer there. In the articles I have read about him I have thought that he is an “opportunist” – and I am disappointed that he will now split the vote with Saldana, thus giving Bilbray the edge in the election.
I look forward to your next article about Saldana. And yes, for those of you driving past my house – I do have a “Saldana” in front of it.
Not necessarily. In the June primary, if no one gets over 50% of the vote, the top two finishers move on to November. Theoretically we could see a November matchup between Saldana and Peters. Unlikely, but it could happen.
I don’t really buy the premise here. The model of only sending rabid partisans to office is what we are doing in California now, and it is killing us. I don’t see why Scott Peters needs to be put on trial for the 20-25% of Tea Party candidates that are currently in the House. I also think ideology is a bit overstated in this context. For Congress, my ideology is competence. Send the person best equipped to do the job as you see fit.
Further, my read of the current political field is as follows:
Going back a bit, in any mid-term election, the opposition party is likely to pick up some seats, but for my money, liberals have to take some of the blame for the Tea Party getting so much traction in 2010. The elections of 2006 and 2008 were not a liberal mandate by any stretch. They were a repudiation of Republicans, and specifically George Bush.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single new liberal that got sent to Washington in other of those elections other than Al Franken, who barely won in a pretty liberal state. That’s not a liberal revolution. Obama is and was not a liberal, and really didn’t even campaign as one, pushing bipartisanship at every turn. In my view, liberals claimed ownership of a revolution that was not their own. They overstepped and got a near-immediate backlash that led to the Tea Party getting enough traction to become obstructionists in the House.
But IMO, that’s where that message tops out. Winning 25-30% of Congressional districts, and no statewide or national elections. Liberals should have given them a standing ovation for trying to kill the GOP.
Looking at it today, they weren’t able to. They tried like the dickens, but again IMO, the lesson of these primaries is that no matter how hard they tried, and however many messengers they tried to send to do the job, they couldn’t even knock down a lackluster, off-putting moderate Republican in Mitt Romney. Don’t buy the hype, this race isn’t even close. Mitt has 2.5 times the delegates Santorum does, and 5 times the amount Newt does. He is up 60-40% in delegates against all other candidates, and realistically, it would be closer to 70-30% if the opposition to him had to consolidate around a single candidate.
In other words, even though 2/3rds of Republican primary voters (a rather conservative lot) can’t stand the guy, Mitt Romney is taking this nomination by a healthy margin. What does that say about the extent of the appeal of the Tea Party message? Or their chances to stay in office in such numbers running downticket from such an uninspiring candidate who is likely to get handled easily this November?
When the dusts settles, I think we will see a significantly different GOP rising from the ashes of this November. As Peters said, you need to win the middle third to get elected. This is true whether you are Reagan or Obama. The GOP needs to wrestle back their messenging from the partisan fringe and start appealing beyond what New York Magazine recently referred to as “heartland identity politics”. Link here if anyone interested:
http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/
In sum, I don’t think promoting a partisan death spiral does anything to address the current and future challenges we face in this country. Less strident grandstanding, more action, please.
As to this race, I will look more into the candidates. But I don’t agree with eliminating candidates based on what a relatively small faction of the current House looks like.
Seth-
It’s not so much a matter of sending only “rabid partisans” to office. Rather, it’s more a matter of sending someone with a spine that will stand up to Republican intransigence. Look at the Senate: Their stated goal and #1 top priority–NOTHING else matters to them–is to “make sure Barack Obama is a one term president.” So says their leader, Mitch McConnell. They have no intention of actually legislating. Every bill is filibustered. EVERY bill. Record number of Executive appointments have gone unfilled simply because they “can’t hand President Obama a victory.” Darrell Issa loves to excoriate the administration and the ATF for Fast and Furious, and says they’re leaderless. Well, they are leaderless. The guy in charge is the interim director. The guy Obama appointed to lead the ATF was blocked by the Senate for the last three years. For no good reason.
Look at what’s happening in the House: Every single bill that gets passed does so on strict party lines. Boehner is much more concerned about making sure he has unanimity within his party than he is in actually legislating. Almost no bill that passes in the house has a prayer in hell at passing in the Senate. Boehner could easily have remedied that if he were more concerned about passing GOOD legislation; if he would only slightly moderate his bills so as to attract a decent chunk of Democrats. There were bills that he couldn’t pass because they weren’t extreme enough for the Tea Party, and far too extreme for the Dems. If he would have disregarded the Tea Party and tempered the bill just enough to get a few Dems on board, he would have had a bill that might pass through the Senate.
But he won’t do that. He’s strictly concerned about passing REPUBLICAN legislation through the House, regardless of whether or not it will pass the Senate. And the negotiations that have gone on have only served to make all legislation more and more conservative, because the Republicans WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON ANYTHING! Peters assumes that these are reasonable people. They are not. He can be as moderate as he wants to be, but my issue is that he’s overly conciliatory to the Repubs and doesn’t have a real understanding of what is actually going on in Congress.
If all the votes are happening according to party line, as you say, what is the big threat of sending a more moderate Democrat to Congress? I see nothing in this guy’s ideology to say that he is going to start voting along with the conservative fringe. More importantly, if the Tea Party is as strident and intractable as you say, and I think that they are, they aren’t going to compromise with anyone anyway.
In my view, anyone with a “my way or the highway” approach in Congress should take their ball and go home, be they conservative or liberal. It’s government, not Yankees vs Red Sox. Ours is a predominantly moderate country with a system of government based upon promoting compromise. That’s democracy, in my view.
Not to say that you cannot be liberal or conservative and serve effectively, but I don’t agree with the idea that Democrats need to match the intractability of a small group of Congressional Tea Partiers whose numbers are set to be greatly reduced this fall. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and if the current climate in California is any example, they don’t lead to good government, either. Reagan and Tip O’Neill
were on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but even they were able to reach across the aisle and work together in order to get things done. We need more of that, not less.
Usually I just post a link in these kinds of conversations and go on. But today I’d like to borrow several paragraphs from a story on Raw Story entitled “It’s All Gingrich’s Fault”. The extreme partisanship in DC didn’t just happen; it happened by design. So when a self professed moderate like Peters goes to the Hill, he’ll quickly find that path isn’t an option….
from Raw Story…
Why don’t you do a search on, say, “Gingrich” and “GOPAC Memo?”
When Newt and his faction rolled in at the half-time of the Clinton presidency, he openly taught Republican candidates through his political organization, GOPAC, to create a new era– of rancorous incivility.
In the notorious GOPAC Memo, entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” he provided nothing less than a list of words for Democrats to be distributed to Republican candidates.
“Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents,” runs that document.
“Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you.
These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their (sic) record, proposals and their party.”
None of that old-timey “my friends across the aisle” stuff.
Instead– don’t say “Democrat– say traitor.”
Here’s a list of words from the Idea Man, right out of that toxic memo:
abuse of power… anti-(issue)… betray… bizarre… bosses… coercion… collapse(ing)…
“compassion” is not enough… cheat… consequences… corruption… criminal “rights…”
crisis… cynicism… decay… deeper… destroy… destructive… devour… disgrace… endanger…
excuses… failure (fail)… flag-family-child, greed… hypocrisy… impose… ideological…
incompetent… insecure… insensitive… intolerant… jobs… liberal… lie… limit(s)… machine…
mandate(s)… obsolete… pathetic… permissive (attitudes)… patronage… pessimistic… punish
(the poor)… radical… red tape… selfish… self-serving… sensationalists… shallow… shame…
sick… spend(ing)… stagnation… status quo… steal… taxes [of course]… they/them… threaten…
traitors… unionized bureaucracy… urgent(cy)… waste… welfare…
These are not words uttered in the heat of political passion.
This is a deliberate strategy, a calculated tantrum from a bloated ego unwilling to receive any result but its own way.
Human Nature being what it is, you can’t work with colleagues who openly insult you to your face.
The result is… gridlock.
And, if the voters throw up their hands to declare, ‘a plague on both your houses,” all the better. At least nothing will get done.
Remember this when you hear the Republicans piously deploring “partisanship.”
Here’s the link to the story Doug referenced above:
It’s all Gingrich’s fault
Doug, like any other faction, the Tea Partiers only have as much power as they are given. I am basically saying the following:
Theirs is a message of limited appeal. It can help win them 25-30% of Congressional districts in the short-term, but because it alienates most of the middle ground, it is a liability in statewide or national elections.
There are many reasons for how they got their power, not the least of which is a bunch of Fox News propaganda. But as I said above, part of it was a backlash against liberals overstepping a perceived mandate after the 2008 election. What many liberals forget is that their message is also of a limited appeal.
Most Americans are pretty moderate, and specifically, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That may not make for very compelling news cycle filler for the infotainment outlets that masquerade as journalism in our society, but I believe the numbers back this up.
While partisans may have an inherent advantage in the primary stage, Peters is entirely correct that those who capture the middle ground are the ones who win the more contested elections. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc… even Romney in these Republican primaries.
Where liberals look at the Tea Party and see a threat, in my view, yeah… they have enough numbers to be obstructionist in the short-term, but really, all they are doing is marginalizing themselves over the long haul. I say go for it.
If the obstinacy of the tea party was purely based on ideological concerns I’d be willing to say that, like many other groups that have emerged in history, eventually they’ll learn the art of compromise and conciliation. But the Tea Party is different in that a group of citizens with concerns are being manipulated by some very cynical and very wealthy ideologues whose goal is nothing less than the “re-construction” of our republic.
With only 10% of the seats in the House, they can be as loud as they want about all that. Everyone can just work around them. But I just don’t think those are the Republicans that people like Scott Peters are talking about when they call for bipartisanship. Ultimately, they are a fringe element nostalgic for a past that never really existed, and even Republicans are tuning them out at this point.
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of liberals who are stuck in 1965, espousing an outdated model that only works after a baby boom, when nearly all of the population is of working age between 18 and 65 years old.
Which is the other part of this article I take issue with. I would offer that over the last 20 years, Clintonian Third Way politics have likely been the dominant strain in this country. Left-leaning moderates are not “weak-kneed” or liberals who just lack the courage to go all the way with it. I see that a lot, but for most, it’s an actual belief system that shares much overlap with liberalism on social issues and foreign policy, but is wary of the the economic excesses of the liberal model.
These are the people who came to power in 2006 and 2008, not liberals, and I don’t know that there is anything wrong with that. After Republicans get another asswhupping in November — and given that they lack both a message and messenger, they almost certainly will — I expect that the GOP will start to undergo the same sort of transformation going forward.
Their dog don’t hunt.
I appreciate the discussion here, and look forward to speaking to the OB Planning Group in May. I walked in OB today, and always enjoy the eclectic group of people that I meet: young families sunning in their front yards, enjoying craft beer with friends, and people who have created incredible gardens, and amazing wildlife- baby owls in a palm tree, wild parrots, and garden chickens (made legal this month by city council).
As for the analysis of what happened with the GOP “Contract on/for America” in 1994: Gingrich sowed some bitter seeds and began an era of extreme partisanship and hyperbole that has never subsided. We now have adherents to Grover Norquist “no taxes, no way” pledges that even Ronald Reagan would not be able to adhere to.
(FYI, Bilbray, Issa and Hunter have all signed the Norquist pledge- see http://www.scribd.com/doc/41212011/Taxpayer-Protection-Pledge-Signers-for-the-112th-Congress )
Worse, what we are seeing in Washington today has strong roots in what was done in California over the last several years. I know current House GOP Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy well- we served together in the Assembly 2005-2006 before he went to DC. His task: hold the Tea Party element together for Speaker Boehner, which means bringing forward legislation on issues that Tea Party/hard right Republicans can agree on. And push the nation’s economy into crisis mode, e.g. the “debt ceiling” debacle last summer. Thus the fear, anger and gridlock in DC.
As for the Open Primary in the 52nd district- there are 10 candidates in the race: 6 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 3 Democrats. Polling consistently shows Bilbray in the hi 30%/low 40% range, which is incredibly vulnerable for an incumbent. Polling by independent firms and my opponents (which they are loathe to release) show me in the low/mid 20% range- on track for the run off in 2nd place behind Bilbray.
Peters is attacking me because he is consistently polling in the low teens%. People don’t know him and/or don’t like what they do know about him. That means he and 7 other people are fighting over 50% to 60% of the vote, and the only ways to get into 2nd place are:
1)ATTACK the leaders and/or
2) DEPRESS voter turnout rather than come up with something POSITIVE for people to want to vote for.
So- I’m out walking door to door in OB on sunny afternoons, having pleasant conversations with voters I’ve represented for 6 years, and my yard signs are appearing in the beach area lawns like red-white&blue spring flowers . The people I talk with actually look forward to voting- what a concept!
Meanwhile, my opponents are digging through old newspaper clippings and churning up negative attacks to use not just to discredit me, but to disgust voters and stop them from even casting a ballot.
That’s right: negative attack ads work not because they change minds and get someone to vote for another person. They work because voters get fed up with negativity, and choose not to go vote for anyone- even the good guys- thus voter turnout declines overall into the dismal ranges of 30%. It’s terrible…
Despite this, I’ll keep walking and shaking hands and handing out info in person, and even personally delivering yard signs. Why? Because I have a beautiful district to walk in, and I believe that people in San Diego, Coronado and Poway want (and deserve) a government that actually functions well, so they can get their licenses for various activities, and their registrations renewed on time, and their permits for new projects, and can afford to earn college degrees and certificates, and don’t have to file for bankruptcy because they get sick, and can get the police to respond when someone steals their belongings- among other things.
To me, this is the role and function of government: provide safety and security, offer opportunities for education and professional advancement, and make sure people are healthy and secure. We don’t judge government by how much money we make- we judge it by how secure, healthy, educated and employed people are. And compared to many nations, we are doing a good job of that here in the USA.
So, if you live in OB, and I didn’t make it to your home today, please send me a message if you’d like to meet over coffee, or have a yard sign delivered, or just want to ask a question. I’d be happy to get to know more of you…and your chickens! Call my office: 858-278-1424.
And if you have some free time- we need volunteers! We are a grassroots campaign: no paid walkers will knock on your door for me. Just friendly, determined volunteers who want to encourage you to vote on June 5.
Let me repeat: VOTE on JUNE 5!!! Even if it’s not for me- please vote. A lot of people throughout US history have worked very, very hard to ensure that you have that democratic right to cast a vote. Do it for them. They deserve it.
Thanks!
Lori Saldaña
Lori-
I look forward to hearing what you have to say the next time we get a chance to talk!
Very nice work on the go-along guy, Peters. I thought it particularly revealing that he’s grouchy about Pelosi and Donna Frye, particularly because neither of them are able to “reach across the aisle.” What’s wrong with electing more Democrats? The more we do that the more likely the Democrats will find their courage.