Posted on 08/12/2004 8:19:58 PM PDT by kattracks
LOS ANGELES - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday won the embrace of two California Republican icons, Nancy Reagan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites), hoping their glow would rub off on him in a state that remains hostile territory to him.At a fund raiser that brought in $3 million for the Republican National Committee (news - web sites), Bush praised Schwarzenegger for his performance following last year's gubernatorial recall election.
"He came to this important state and he got the job done," Bush told donors. "That's how I hope people view me as well as the president. I came to the capital and got the job done."
Schwarzenegger joked that he has been working hard for Bush's campaign, saying, "I've been organizing Republicans for Bush-Cheney, I've been organizing ... bodybuilders for Bush-Cheney, I've been organizing girlie men for Bush-Cheney."
The Republican governor, in a comment that provoked controversy during a deadlock in state budget negotiations this summer, mocked Democrats in Sacramento as gutless "girlie men" unable to break away from trial lawyers, unions and other special interests. Some Democrats grumbled that the remark was sexist and homophobic. The governor didn't apologize.
Earlier, Bush and his wife stopped by the home of former first lady Nancy Reagan in the Bel-Air section of Los Angeles, where Mrs. Reagan said she fully supports Bush's re-election. After meeting for about an hour, the three emerged from the house and the president told reporters that he and Mrs. Bush were "honored to pay our respects."
"I'm so glad you came," said Mrs. Reagan, who later issued a statement expressing "my hope that everyone will join" in supporting Bush's campaign. The president and Mrs. Reagan did not discuss their disagreement over Bush's restrictions on stem cell research, caps that the former first lady opposes. They took no questions from reporters.
Polls show California is a virtual lock for Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites). Its 55 electoral votes make up a huge chunk of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
Bush has not been to the most populous state in five months, but he promised to return before the election Nov. 2. "Nobody should take this state for granted in 2004," Bush said.
The president is much more concerned about keeping Nevada in his column. He won the state in 2000, but polls show it a dead heat now.
He stopped in Las Vegas en route to Southern California and defended his decision two years ago to use Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the nation's high-level nuclear waste dump, a highly unpopular move that is haunting him this year.
Kerry visited Las Vegas earlier this week, and said that Bush broke a campaign promise to ensure science and not politics determined his decision whether to ship waste to Yucca Mountain.
Dozens of scientific studies remain incomplete and a recent federal appeals court ruling raised questions about whether the waste repository will be built, or at least meet its target of 2010 to begin operation.
"I said I would make a decision based upon science, not politics. I said I would listen to the scientists, those involved with determining whether or not this project could move forward in a safe manner and that's exactly what I did," Bush told supporters in this city 90 miles southeast of the proposed waste site.
Bush accused Kerry of pandering to Nevada voters by playing both sides of the issue, part of a broader effort to cast the Massachusetts senator as someone who bends to the political winds.
"He says he's strongly against Yucca here in Nevada, but he voted for it several times," Bush claimed.
That is not exactly true.
Each time Kerry has faced the simple choice of voting whether or not to send waste to Yucca Mountain, he has voted against it. But he has voted for some measures that had provisions to allow nuclear dumps there. Some 16 years ago, Kerry voted for an overall budget bill that included a provision favoring putting the nuclear waste in Nevada.
In a TV interview here, Bush declined to condemn a Republican TV ad criticizing John Kerry's military service. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. and like Kerry a Vietnam War veteran, called the ad "dishonorable."
Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" whether he agreed with the ad, Bush twice deflected, saying he opposed the system in which outside groups can air such commercials.
Bush was also asked whether this year's election is the most important in American history.
"For me it is," Bush said with a laugh.
He'll be back one (1) more time before the election? Aw gee whiz, my vote isn't worth the effort again. Why doesn't he just cecede the state to Mexico and get it over with?
Rush mentioned this today, plus the fact that JfnK mispronounced Yucca and Nevada.
Am so glad that Nancy and Ahnold are doing the right thing by promoting Bush/Cheney.
Nancy Reagan is a Republican icon. GovRino is a Hollywood icon. Their support together won't win California for PresBush.
"Schwarzenegger joked that he has been working hard for Bush's campaign, saying, "I've been organizing Republicans for Bush-Cheney, I've been organizing ... bodybuilders for Bush-Cheney, I've been organizing girlie men for Bush-Cheney."
LOL!
"Their support together won't win California for PresBush."
===
And you know this, how?
"I intend to compete in California," Bush said. "Nobody should take this state for granted in 2004."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=696&e=4&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
No one in the GOP leadership and no one in the conservative movement believes PresBush has any chance of winning California. No Californian that I speak to believes Bush has any chance of winning California. Support from Nancy Reagan might sway some voters. Support from GovRino will have no impact. In practical terms, Bush ain't got no chance of winning California. If you believe Bush has a good shot at winning California, you're either dreaming or delusional.
What your post really sounds like is that YOU would rather have Bush lose California and the election, than to win it thanks to Arnold.
The McClintock syndrome.
Now, explain to us how liberal Arnold is gonna get California liberals to vote for PresBush.
Who did you vote for in 2000?
I was going to reply to the "icon" stateent but that as been adequately addressed already. :-)
I'll address the two other topics.
I, for one, I am happy to see that G.W. has, so far, managed to remain low key about the SwiftBoat vets despite heightened pressure. He is doing as they, and we, asked of him by not involving himself in a matter that is between the Senator and the Veterans.
California.
I've been moderately opposed to exploiting Mrs. Reagan, a widow, at a political convention. I prefer what occured today. It was a relaxed environment, the majority of time spent in private. Respectful given her status and loss. At the end her endorsement carried weight but without seeming 'classless'.
I'm also of opinion, in theory, any state can be in play. The reality is that California would not easily 'be in play" for G.W., weighted by a fair share of Liberals. Though, A successful campaign should not allow the realities to interfere with taking the risk an upset can occur.
Republicans have ceded California. They never should have done so. If G.W. wishes to campaign in California, I welcome that shift in attitude. Republicans as a whole should fight to shift public attitude in that state back to the conservative side.
Since you can't seem to explain to us why California liberals should vote for PresBush, I'll offer this short response that might help you out. The reason Arnold won California is because he appealed to liberals. Liberals happen to be the majority of voters in California and they hate PresBush. Liberals wouldn't vote for Bush under any circumstances. Liberals voted for GovRino because they like his liberal policy agenda for California. Got it now?
And I thought third (3rd) graders grew out of whining.
Bush's Father carried CA and that was only 3 elections ago.
I don't consider it impossible that W could carry CA. A lot will also depend on the turnout. If Bush voters will be more motivated, I think there is a chance and wouldn't that be sweet?
Your dismissing even the possibility is destroying the motivation of Republicans to turn out, because "all is lost anyway". With an attitude like that, you are writing a self fulfilling prophesy. And all because you hate Arnold.
As I said, you rather see Bush lose, than have him win, thanks to Arnold. Arnold made it acceptable to be a Republican in California.
Those are your words and they're a variation of the mantra you and others used to denounce those of us who supported Tom McClintock during the recall election. Can anyone forget that tired and worn out red herring of a slogan you Arnoldnuts kept using. Remember? A vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamonte.
I'm not the only one who believes Bush`s chances of winning California are slim to none. You just don't like hearing the truth about your GovRino. Well, too bad. Arnold is more a Teddy Kennedy liberal, then he will ever be a Ronald Regan conservative.
You're dreaming! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.