|
President
Bush is in California for his first visit since before last year's
election. The president came under
some
criticism for not traveling to California during the first 100 days
of his presidency — a move that led some to conclude he has
written off his political future in the nation's largest state.
But what the president's critics haven't noticed is that the White
House is quietly working to build support in California — with
an eye toward winning the state in 2004. This is Byron York's profile
of Bush's main man in California, investment banker Gerald Parsky,
from the current issue of NR:
 
really believe that the week before the election, we were within
five points in California," says Gerald Parsky, a little wistfully,
as he describes George W. Bush's presidential campaign in the nation's
largest state. Parsky, an investment banker in Los Angeles, chaired
the Bush effort in California, and even though the GOP ticket was
soundly whipped — Al Gore won the state by 12 percentage points
— Parsky has become an extraordinarily influential figure in
Bush's circle of advisers. Virtually unknown in Washington, Parsky
talks to top Bush aide Karl Rove several times a week (that's in
addition to their regular politics-and-policy phone conversation
every Sunday). He's deeply involved in some of the president's top-priority
initiatives, including Social Security re form and the selection
of federal judges. And on top of that, he's playing a key role in
a project that Bush has been quietly pursuing since last Election
Day: the effort to repair California's badly broken GOP and help
the president win reelection in 2004.
Parsky, 58, fits the Bush-administration type: a high official in
the Ford years (assistant secretary of the Treasury) who went on
to a successful career in business before joining the 2000 campaign.
Parsky got to know the first George Bush in the mid 1970s and kept
up with the Bush family through the years, but didn't join the ranks
of W. supporters until much later. "I met [Parsky] in '97," recalls
Rove. "He was recommended by a number of people, including Bush
41, as somebody we ought to get to know." By late 1998 and early
1999, just before the Texas governor announced his presidential
campaign, Parsky was regularly visiting Austin to give advice. "I
felt that [Bush] was conservative, as I am, but at the same time
he felt the need to reach out to people who felt left out by the
Republican party," Parsky remembers. "The theme of expanding the
reach of the party was very important in California."
After the election, Parsky chose not to come to Washington with
the new administration, preferring to stay on as chairman of Aurora
Capital Group, the investment firm he founded in 1991. But he stayed
in close touch with the Bush team, which quickly tapped him for
several projects. Some of them, like his appointment to the Social
Security commission, relate directly to his experience in government
and the capital markets. But others, like the judicial-selection
process, have placed Parsky in a new role, dealing with what is
perhaps the most contentious issue facing the Bush administration.
For months now, the White House has been preparing for intense fights
over federal judicial nominations. The administration faced a particularly
grim situation in California, with its two liberal Democratic senators,
Dianne Fein stein and Barbara Boxer, who could, if they chose, block
any White House choice for any seat in the nation's largest and
most politically important state. In mid March, White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales called Parsky with a request for help.
The president had made a power-sharing deal with the two senators,
agreeing to the creation of a new system to select candidates for
the federal district courts in California. Gonzales asked Parsky
to oversee four new committees that will cover different geographical
regions of the state. The White House, through Parsky, will ap point
three people to each committee, and Feinstein and Boxer will also
ap point three. The committees will select candidates for each judicial
position, and it will take four votes for a candidate to win a spot,
which means at least one Democrat will have to agree to each nominee;
Parsky will have the final say on nominees.
Some conservatives accused the White House of caving in to the Democrats;
Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot called the deal
a "huge and unusual concession." But past administrations have also
bargained with senators over judges, especially at the district
level (while maintaining tighter control over appeals-court nominations).
Bush's move was, more than anything else, a bow to the realities
of California politics. "It's definitely a trial system," Parsky
says. "The White House could have said, 'We'll just pick our people
and we'll let you know,' but rather than do that, they've said,
's get the senators involved.'" Although it's unclear precisely
how the arrangement will work, it's safe to say it will produce
less conservative candidates than the administration would select
on its own. Choosing his words carefully, Parsky says only that
the committees will look for "people where ideology isn't the overriding
qualification, while recognizing that the president is a conservative."
The White House's relatively weak bargaining position stems not
only from the GOP's problems in the Senate, but from Bush's poor
showing in Cali fornia last November. It's hard to overstate how
different the political world would be if Bush had won the state
— and it's also hard to imagine Bush winning there in 2004.
But that is Parsky's job in yet another assignment that is critically
important to the White House: overseeing the rebuilding of the California
state Republican party.
Badly damaged by a long list of political missteps, the California
GOP is today essentially a volunteer operation, without professional
management, strategists, a communications operation, or any of the
other necessities of top-level politics. For example, it has been
woefully ineffective in responding to the attacks of Gov. Gray Davis,
who has accused Bush of "turning a blind eye to the bleeding and
hemorrhaging" in California as a result of energy shortages. The
GOP has also alienated the state's powerful Hispanic population,
done poorly with other minorities, and, on top of all that, suffered
from a dearth of political talent. "It's sort of pathetic," says
Michael Barone, coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
"Most elected Cali fornia Republicans have the political instincts
of a stone."
"It's no secret that the party needs rebuilding," says Rep. David
Dreier, a Parsky friend. "I've spoken about it with the president,
and it's a high priority for him." And Rove, the White House's most
astute California-watcher, is particularly aware of the problem.
"They need to begin to recruit good candidates," he says of the
state party, "to undertake programs to rebuild the grass-roots structure
of the party, and to involve a broader group of people in the decision-making
process."
To that end, Rove keeps in touch not only with Parsky, Dreier, and
other members of the California House delegation, but with leaders
in Sacramento like state senator Jim Brulte ("I just got an e-mail
from Brulte two minutes ago," Rove said during a recent conversation).
"The party has to change its culture," Brulte says. "We're trying
to pro fessionalize the operation. And if the White House weren't
interested, Parsky wouldn't be part of it."
So Parsky and his team are making changes. They plan to spend between
$20 million and $30 million to totally reorganize the party —
to select a powerful chairman, set up a media operation, pick political
professionals for key offices, and work more closely with Republican
candidates statewide. And as he does that, Parsky is constantly
taking Bush's political temperature in California with an eye toward
'04. Just this year, he's commissioned four statewide polls on Bush's
popularity, with another set for the end of May. In the most recent
survey, Bush got a 61 percent job-approval rating, with 31 percent
disapproval. "That's the highest he's been," Parsky says hopefully.
"In February, it was 58 percent." Parsky has also found, to his
relief, that most Cali fornians don't blame Bush for the energy
mess.
Those are all at least mildly good signs, and at least for now,
Parsky has the benefit of low expectations — and in some cases,
no expectations. Despite all the work going on, many observers be
lieve that Bush has given up any hope of winning California. In
mid April, for example, the New York Times published a story
headlined "Bush Is Devoting Scanty Attention to California," saying
the president "appears to have relegated the state to political
purgatory, reflecting his advisers' judgment that he cannot win
here in 2004." The Times pointed out that, in contrast to
the California-loving Bill Clinton, Bush has not yet traveled to
the state as president (that will change soon, when the White House
announces Bush's first visit).
The president's team laughs off the Bush-gives-up talk. "Totally
wrong," says Parsky. "Just silly," says Dreier. "You'll notice that
never comes from us," says Rove. "It usually comes from somebody
with a 'D' by their name who doesn't want to see us out there."
Meanwhile, the White House is quietly working, quietly organizing,
quiet ly planning to run a winning race in Cali fornia in 2004.
Is it possible? Maybe. But even if the odds are long, the reward
makes the effort worthwhile. In the next election, California will
have 55 electoral votes. How can Bush write them off? "It's not
going to be easy," Parsky says, "but I really believe we've planted
the seeds for a major turnaround."
|
