I’ve known Arnold Steinberg for nearly twenty years, and he had been involved in political campaigns and causes long before we became aquainted, and developed our longtime friendship.
Strategist Arnie Steinberg has been involved in virtually every phase of political and advertising campaigns. Also, he has created more than 1600 opinion survey projects and focus groups and has testified as an expert witness frequently on elections, public opinion, advertising, and related issues. For major litigation, he has helped develop legal strategy and jury profiles. Many years ago, he wrote two graduate textbooks on politics and media. He has served on various government and foundation boards. Currently, Steinberg provides strategic counsel and survey research to private clients and selected political clients.
I was very excited to interview Arnie because, as you will see, he pulls no punches in speaking his mind…
Jon Fleischman, Publisher, The FlashReport
This is part two of a two-part interview. Check out the first half of the interview, published yesterday, right here.
FR: Continuing our discussion of the Presidential race — Fred Thompson?
AS: A good communicator. Like other candidates, he will be judged implicitly by how he creates his campaign. For example, McCain said he wanted a leaner, fiscally sound federal government but ran a bloated, inefficient campaign. Thompson had turnover before he started. Perhaps the good news is he can make tough decisions on people, and he cut his losses. We are talking about the country’s CEO.
FR: Huckabee, Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter.
AS: Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter are good guys, but not viable. I suppose someone might make the case that a Rudy needs to hold the base with a Brownback as VP. I’m not sure that would be necessary. Why not go with a Huckabee who, if he had money, could be viable? I see the Tancredo campaign as a churning operation, raising lots of direct mail dollars from small donors. It should be called “Printers and Envelope Companies for Tancredo.”
FR: Were you surprised Gingrich didn’t run?
AS: He was never viable. He’ll still get on Sean Hannity arguing that the candidate should be a policy wonk. And Jack Kemp will argue that we’ll keep the presidency if only our nominee speaks to more African-American groups.
FR: How important is it to defeat …
AS: Hillary? Like many rank and file Republicans, I am appalled by the current likelihood that she will be President. But I fear her mainly on domestic policy, where she remains an unreconstructed liberal. On foreign policy, she will not be as bad, because she wants to show that a woman president will kick ass. If she’s elected, she will overcompensate for Bill Clinton’s tacit acquiescence to Al Queda. Leftist Democrats will be estranged, as the few reasonable Democrats in Congress would join with Republicans to support national defense. Also, she would be a disaster in terms of her appointments, and it would be a big win for the Hollywood Left and the aging Hippies.
FR: Any Hillary-lose scenarios?
AS: Lots. For example, Obama scores a plurality in a key state, the primary becomes more competitive, Hillary goes negative, reinforcing the view she’s not charming. Further, she depresses African-American turnout in November.
FR: Other topics. Erwin Chemerinsky?
AS: The on-again, off-again dean of UC-Irvine’s new law school?
FR: Yes.
AS: The last thing California needs is another new law school. Don Bren, why did you do this? And Erwin?
FR: Because he’s a liberal?
AS: No, because he’s an ideologue. He is much more liberal than Robert Bork is conservative. And the objections made against Bork as a jurist are much more compelling against Chemerinsky as a law school dean.
FR: Because….
AS: I debated him once on what later would become Proposition 209 [prohibited state and local government preferences for race and gender]. He an intelligent and charming guy with impressive sound bites. He was gentlemanly and gracious in the debate. You can’t help but like him. But he’s a whiner who believes bleeding hearts should define constitutional law with their pathology.
FR: Are you biased because you were instrumental in creating the Proposition 209 campaign?
AS: No, Erwin Chemerinsky either acted deviously – and was an intellectual fraud – or acted incompetently – and was intellectually sloppy – when he argued that Proposition 209’s “Clause C” would redefine settled law and allow discrimination against women. It was a spurious argument on its face and easily disproved by serious legal scholars. I think [California Supreme Court Chief Justice] Ron George wrote a letter that pointed out another entirely flawed legal argument that Chemerinsky had made. Former judge Quentin Kopp also was appalled by the appointment. These are not minor differences of interpretation. Chemerinsky is political, promiscuously so, and that seems to guide his scholarship.
FR: For example…
AS: A three judge penal in the liberal ninth Circuit Court unanimously ruled against his preposterous lawsuit against Caterpillar, i.e., that the company was acting under protection of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific in this area. Chemerinsky argued for damages for the parents of Rachel Corrie, the American girl mistakenly killed by Caterpillar bulldozers used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to clear out terrorist sanctuaries in Gaza. What I found most appalling is to hear him recently on Hugh Hewitt’s show defending his lawsuit. Chemerinsky then created a hypothetical of a U.S. corporation supplying Hitler with materials used to kill Jews. This, of course, is the quintessential leftist, in this case, who equals Israel or its supporters to Hitler and the Holocaust. The fact that Chemerinsky is Jewish makes it doubly offensive. Next thing you know, we’ll find Pat Buchanan quoting Chemerinsky.
FR: Politics makes strange bedfellows!
AS: At least Ron Paul has a positive vision and supports the free market. I may disagree with him, but he’s hardly a reactionary. Buchanan has a dark side that I find deeply troubling.
FR: Should Columbia University have invited Ahmadinejad?
AS: Of course not. It is the height of liberal hypocrisy to invite a violence-prone thug helping kill Americans and yet prohibit ROTC recruiters from on campus. Sounds like something Steven Spielberg would do. Or Erwin Chemerinsky. And you don’t introduce a speaker and then lambast him, as the Columbia University president did, to regain credibility. Ahmadinejad scored points, because he enhanced his stature.
FR: Some say Ahmadinejad hurt himself…
AS: By saying the “phenomenon” of homosexuality does not exist in Iran? I mean, the guy compares Iran’s capital punishment to the death penalty here, and he gets a pass. Do we stone teenage girls to death for losing their virginity? And Columbia students hold placards saying he’s bad, but Bush is worse!
FR: You were involved very early in creating Dick Riordan’s campaign for mayor of Los Angeles. What’s Antonio Villaraigosa’s future?
AS: He never stopped campaigning. The downside of his frenetic pace is that he had nowhere to go, but down. If he had the flu for a couple of days, voters would say the mayor is invisible, he doesn’t do anything. He has plenty of time to recover from his public infidelity. But a key indicator will be Latina women voters. I suspect they are applying a double standard – forgive the wandering husband, but hold a heroic would-be role model for their kids to a higher standard.
FR: Is he the next governor?
AS: I don’t know. I give him high marks for trying to reform the disastrous Los Angeles school system. But he set unrealistic goals for dramatic improvement in schools during his first term as mayor. Even if everything went right, the schools are so screwed up, they would be unlikely to show short-term improvement.
FR: Can Republicans work with him?
AS: In the Legislature, he kept his word. Republican can trust him. His wife, of course, is a Democrat.
FR: Very funny. Isn’t he far out liberal?
AS: Yes, but he’s pragmatic. Still, as even a big-time Democrat, billionaire Eli Broad discovered, Antonio could not overcome his union roots. At the end of the day, he favored the teacher unions over real school reform.
FR: And on immigration?
AS: Clearly, he is off the charts. He doesn’t get it – that assimilation is more important, much more important, than being a magnet for more illegal immigration. It is incredible that it took an Anglo Mayor – Dick Riordan – to actively support the ballot measure to replace bilingual education with teaching Latino kids English. It remains depressing to me that an Antonio Villaraigosa or a Fabian Nunez were on the wrong side of this issue., and they continue to foster, among our vastly growing Latino population, an expectation of entitlement that many other immigrant leaders, a half century or much more ago, actively discouraged.
FR: Here, and nationally, what can you say about the direction of the Republican party, and its internal divisions?
AS: We blew the post-1994 era by becoming part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Good government reform is the best way to expand the base – on the cheap, without sacrificing your principles. Limiting the pay and perks of politicians, pushing for open government, cutting earmarks, taking on lobbyists. Republicans punted, or went the wrong way. This Congress doesn’t work weekends, and then it’s called back into session to deal with Terry Schiavo!. And this is federalism? This was the Congressional Republicans’ Katrina. And I don’t say that with any disrespect toward the moral issues here. This just wasn’t a question for the United States Congress.
FR: Are traditionalist or cultural conservatives forever split from libertarian or economic conservatives?
AS: The Republican party should be the party of history, tradition, culture and values. It cannot be merely a party of bookkeepers. It must have passion. That said, the party cannot be theological. I respect the moral issues involved with stem cell research, for example, but the party is alienating large segments of the electorate, including even many voters who consider themselves value-based conservatives.
FR: One last question. A couple of days ago, Hillary said, give every child born $5,000 from the Federal government to grow over time. Your thoughts?
AS: It shows we can still win.
FR: Arnie, thanks for sitting down for another interview for the FlashReport!
FLASHBACK — This is our third interview with Steinberg, read the others: February 10, 2006, November 2, 2005.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.