Bush May Consider Schwarzenegger Support

The Guardian ^ | Aug. 8, 2003 | SCOTT LINDLAW , Associated Press

[kayak]

I'm on the other coast so know very little about the specifics of your situation ... only what I have picked up on FR. I have some questions for those of you who live in CA.

I saw some poll numbers on tv a month ago that indicated that the legislature is even less popular than Davis ..... his approval rating was something like 22% but the legislature's was only 18%! Do you think the voters will play fruit-basket-turnover in the legislature in the next election (which I assume will be in 2004)? Will they just put in different 'rats? Might the election of Arnold as governor help with getting more GOP members in the legislature?

[Southack]

One thing that getting an (R) into the governor's mansion helps is to depress the campaign contributions of the (D)'s.

Powerful people and big corporations like to back winners who can help them out, and whomever is in the governor's office matters to them even when they are making national donations.

[onyx]

This state has been under democrat control in both state houses for sooooooooooo long a time that they have managed to gerrymander the districts to insure democrats lifetime elected offices!

[FairOpinion]

"Might the election of Arnold as governor help with getting more GOP members in the legislature? "

--

I personally think that getting Arnold elected will start to turn the tide in the Republicans favor in general.

[vbmoneyspender]

Whenever they do those surveys -- they hardly ever ask the question the right way. They always ask the general question about how the legislature in general is doing, but they hardly ever ask how voters think their own legislator is doing. In the surveys I have seen that ask both of those questions, people almost always say that the legislature is doing a poor job, but then most of those polled say that their legislator is an exception to the rule and is doing a great job. Basically, people are loath to admit that the guy they voted for is doing a bad job because what kind of idjit would vote for someone who has a 20% approval rating.

Additionally, in California, the Senate and Assembly seats have been gerrymandered to the point that the real contest in each election comes in the primary. So most legislators are very unwilling to do anything that would piss off their base. That is why the Republicans were able to hang together this year and hold the line on new taxes because, I believe, every Republican legislator who cut deals with Gray Davis several years ago that resulted in increased taxes was defeated in the Republican primaries that followed last year.

[eccl1212]

Thanks for that posting. Ronald... smart man.

[kayak]

Ah, gerrymandering. We are quite familiar with that in NC. See that green snake-y looking squiggle in the west-central part of the state? That follows a stinking interstate highway for about 150 miles! They had to include part of Charlotte in the District so that truck drivers didn't outnumber residents!

My prayers are with all of you that positive changes come about and SOON!

[Munson]

The republican cacucus could care less about electing Republicans in marginal and close to marginal districts. In 2002, AD 8, 41, 43, 44, 53, 54, 56 and 61 had 35% or better vote totals and they didnt care about helping these candidates.

I dont think they'll help much when AD 35 and AD 76 become open seat elections.

If we want to change the tone in Sacramento it will take dilegence.

[Smile-n-Win]

The best chance for long term Republican success is to let the dems hang themsleves.

Problem is, they also kill many innocent in the process of committing suicide. California's economy really doesn't need to be destroyed any further.

[onyx]

I can't *see* jpeg's --- something's missing in my computer's programs, but I'm quite familiar with that gawd-awful mess ya'all have in your state, but alas, you do not have gray-doofus, babra boxer or diane feinstein, although you are stuck with John Edwards, however temporary!

Edwards is amazing. Howlin tells me that he's staging town-meetings, but he won't be attending them! Wow. That's either true arrogance or utter stupidity!

[DoughtyOne]

To: FairOpinion

It wasn't that long ago on one of the Recall threads that some of the third party folks were crying because the President wasn't getting involved in the recall effort. The general response to them was the President shouldn't get involved in state elections.

Now the whine is going to change to why is he getting involved in a state election.

11 posted on 08/07/2003 11:17 PM PDT by CWOJackson (The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
 

The time for the President to get involved in state elections is when the governors are elected.  Senate and Congressional seats are important too.

Bush should have made five to seven appearances in California last fall in support of Simon.  He made one short one, perhaps one day.

Involvement in the recall of a governor would be a mistake IMO.  The President should not urge a recall of a governor.  As for replacements, I do think the President is justified in supporting one of them.

I want to see how the polls look before Bush jumps in here.  If McClintock is showing some strength on a par to Arnold, I'd love to see him get the vote.

I think we're stuck with Arnold.  He'll eclipse anyone else on both sides of the isle.  The citizens of this state adore him.  At his announcement on the Leno show, the audience went ballistic with enthusiasm at his announcement.  He was mobbed today down in Norwalk as he picked up papers to file for office.

I don't think Bush is needed right now, but if as I suspect Schwarzenegger sweeps the state in a landslide, Bush might do well to be seen with him.  I'm not trying to be condescending to Bush, but it would be a good idea for him to associate closely with Arnold.  Arnold is immensely popular.  A close affiliation with him could very likely deliver the state on a platter for Bush in 2004.

[George W. Bush]

I smell another idiotic Rove political strategery here.

[C210N]

I personally think that getting Arnold elected will start to turn the tide in the Republicans favor in general.

Consider the case, here in Massachusetts. We've had GOP governors to the wazoo since Dukakis. The legislature is not one Iota more pubbie - its still a 'rats nest. Voters want their 'rats in the legislature, and a pubbie as governor to [Try to] clean up their messes as fiscal conservatives.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

I am one Republican, who is very much leaning to vote against the recall.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can vote against the recall. Either it has enough signatures to go into effect, or it doesn't. That has already been done. Instead you can vote for a Demoncrat.

[Coop]

Will this shut up the so-called "conservatives"? Probably not.

Shut me up? No. Fire me up? Yes.

President Bush needs to stay the heck out of this!!!!!!!!!

[Coop]

You've made some very good points in a couple of threads. Thank you.

[Coop]

Err, I meant to say a couple of posts on this thread. Although I'm sure you have good points in other threads as well. :-)

[krb]

Hahaha...Bush doing this has nothing to do with Arnie winning the Gov slot for the sake of Arnie being gov.

If Bush helps Arnie win the state, then Arnie helps Bush win the state in '04.

And even if Bush doesn't win California in '04, it would suck in a lot of Democrat cash to defend it.

[Brandon]

President Bush shold stay out of California politics.

For now, I agree. But let's fast forward six weeks or so. Say it's September 25 or so, and the polls look something like this:

Recall Davis? Yes: 52%
No: 48%

Replacement candidates:

Major Dem: 32%
Major Rep: 30%
Other Rep: 19%
Other Rep: 8%
Other Rep: 3%

Plus assorted minor party loons.

Still think Bush should stay out? Or should he come in and help whichever Republican it is that is close to winning? Remember the "Bush Bounce" from the 2002 Senate elections? Remember how everyone was saying the Dems would keep control of the Senate, and Bush spend the entire month of October campaigning for Republicans, and threw that prediction back in the media's face? Think it can't happen again? Or would you rather let a Democrat win rather than a Republican who wasn't your first choice?

[heleny]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can vote against the recall. Either it has enough signatures to go into effect, or it doesn't.

Wrong!

Collecting enough signatures (over 12% of the number who voted for the office) on the recall petition ensures that a recall election will occur. That will be October 7, 2003.

On the recall election ballot are two questions.
First, shall Davis be recalled? yes/no.
Second, who shall replace him if he is recalled? pick one from a list of candidates.

To vote against the recall, one simply votes "no" on #1. Regardless of his vote on #1 (yes/no/blank), he may vote for the replacement candidate in #2.