Doing so might have guaranteed the Republican hopeful would become one of the finalists in California’s anti-democratic Top Two system. Since 2012, only two candidates, of any party or no party, from the March 5 primary make it to the final election on Nov. 5 in the state.
Instead, he came dressed in a suit and made up to look like Ronald Reagan, even sounding like him sometimes. He still might make the political World Series in November. But it’s also possible just two Democrats will make the final cut—probably Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter—leaving Republicans again with no choice for U.S. Senate from California, as in 2016 and 2018.
Foreign Policy Largely Absent
A big problem was unfortunately the questioners did not discuss much foreign policy, which actually is the main purview of the U.S. Senate. It must approve all treaties with foreign countries and the nominations for Secretary of State and Defense. There was no discussion of nuclear weapons and treaties with Russia, or for that matter communist China.The Ukraine War came up briefly, when Mr. Schiff totally distorted former President Trump’s negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Can you imagine what would take place if Donald Trump was president when Putin invaded Russia and Ukraine needed our help?” Mr. Schiff said. “The same Donald Trump who stood in Helsinki next to Vladimir Putin and took the Kremlin dictator’s side over his own country, over his own intelligence agencies. Who talks about love letters, about a loving relationship with the dictator in North Korea [Kim Jong Un]. There is no stretch of the imagination, no scenario, none whatever, in which we would be safer. Donald Trump was undermining the alliance with NATO. He was saying that he might not even come to NATO’s defense. Our standing in the world plummeted. Other nations felt they needed to start to hedge their bets. [Foreign countries were thinking:] ‘Maybe we needed to cozy up to China because we can’t rely on the United States anymore.’ That is Donald Trump’s national security legacy. We don’t want to go back to it.”
Unfortunately, nobody challenged Mr. Schiff on any of that, including Mr. Garvey, even though Mr. Schiff is leading in the polls and is the likely victor in November.
Mr. Trump did not take Mr. Putin’s “side” against the intelligence agencies, but doubted certain aspects of the agencies’ reports because of their bias against the U.S. president, as again proved by the Durham report.
As to NATO, Mr. Trump was right to call them “freeloaders,” as has been shown by the disproportionate role the U.S. has taken in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
As to America’s standing in the world, and our status vis a vis Communist China, both have “plummeted” since Mr. Trump left office and Mr. Biden took over, with the backing of Mr. Schiff. Moscow, which had been trying to work out a new relationship with the United States and Europe, in particular over Ukraine and nuclear arms, and might have done so in a second Trump term—especially after the Russia Hoax was exposed by Mr. Durham—instead has cozied up to Beijing.
Under Mr. Biden, Mr. Putin and communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping have forged a global alliance, both economic and military, challenging America’s military and economic order established after World War II. It’s under Mr. Biden, not Mr. Trump, that so many countries have “cozied up” to China and away from the United States.
This would have been an opportunity for Mr. Garvey to shine, to point out the obvious. Instead, he wouldn’t even say if he would support Mr. Trump, should the former president become the Republican’s nominee, as now seems certain.
Abortion Obsession
Another major topic was abortion. Californians in 2022 passed Proposition 1, which placed in the California Constitution the right to an abortion. That isn’t going to change. However, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Porter, and Ms. Lee, like other Democrats, are fixated on forcing abortion on such pro-life states as Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. Ms. Lee even brought up the illegal abortion she got in the 1960s when abortion was illegal in Texas, and she had to go to Mexico, where it also was illegal.Mr. Garvey said his position was, “I would not vote for a federal ban on abortion. Let’s make that clear right now.” However, he wasn’t clear during the abortion discussion what his stance would be on the abortion positions of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the Senate’s main responsibility on the issue.
Conclusion: Garvey Whiffs Too Many Questions
I have emphasized the main issues over which the U.S. Senate has the broadest responsibility, foreign policy, especially with nuclear powers, and Supreme Court nominees, in particular on abortion policy. Unfortunately, Mr. Garvey whiffed his chances to stand out on those issues. At one point, explaining why he was running, all he could say was, “I knew I needed to explore California. I needed to talk to the people. Policy for me is a position. I’ve taken strong positions.”He’s clearly trying to model himself on Ronald Reagan’s 1966 gubernatorial race. But by then the Gipper had been the president of the Screen Actors Guild, given speeches for GE to numerous dinners for business groups around the country, switched from Democrat to Republican, and campaigned strongly in 1964 for conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater for president. No such waffling there.
Mr. Garvey should have come out swinging for the fences on the issues. Instead, it was just another missed opportunity to move Republicans back into contention for California’s political pennant races.
