Bush May Consider Schwarzenegger Support

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

[Brandon]

I smell another idiotic Rove political strategery here.

You mean like the idiotic Karl Rove strategy that won a presidential election against a popular incumbent's annointed successor, during a time of peace and prosperity? Or are you referring to the idiotic Karl Rove strategy that helped win back the Senate in an off-term election, during a recession?

[Dead Corpse]

A trout, left in the sun for a week, could have beaten Algore.

The President, as an individual, can express whatever opinions he wants to. As President, it would be interfering in a State election. Although the Democrats would have no problem doing so themselves, they'd use it as ammo against the GOP in future elections in a heart beat.

As for backing Ah-nold. No. Bush should throw his weight behind REAL conservative like Sen. Tom McClintock.

[SauronOfMordor]

On the upside, you get a Republican who can use the line item veto on California's bloated budget, can single-handedly repeal the tripling of CA's car tax, and can appoint a Republican Senator if Boxer or Feinstein fail to complete their terms, among other things.

And don't forget: can use State law enforcement to look into vote fraud in Dem strongholds, if he has the balls to do it.

[ActionNewsBill]

A Republican governor can start to turn the tide, a Democratic one or Davis staying would just strengthen the stranglehold the Dems have on the state.

I believe that Arnie is a RINO, pro-abortion, anti-gun, but you are absolutely right.

The only way for California to move right is to do so gradually.

In that respect, Arnie would be a good "transition" from socialist government to a more conservative one..

[Coop]

Pulled from a CNN article by Dana Bash, posted yesterday evening:

CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush has no plans to endorse actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who campaigned actively for his father, or to get involved in the California recall race at all, a White House spokeswoman said Thursday.

Definitely the smart approach. I hope it's true.

[Brandon]

A trout, left in the sun for a week, could have beaten Algore.

Perhaps you have forgotten that Gore actually got more popular votes, and came within a whisker of winning in the Electoral College, as well.

The President, as an individual, can express whatever opinions he wants to. As President, it would be interfering in a State election. Although the Democrats would have no problem doing so themselves, they'd use it as ammo against the GOP in future elections in a heart beat.

So President Bush should have stayed out of the 2002 election? Shall we give Mrs. Carnahan her seat back, along with all the other Democrats who went down to defeat, in part because the president was out there "interfering in state elections"?

As for backing Ah-nold. No. Bush should throw his weight behind REAL conservative like Sen. Tom McClintock.

But you just said Bush shouldn't interfere in state elections! I am not taking sides in this; I'm not from Cali. I just want a Republican to win! If that turns out to be McClintock, that's fine by me. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the president helping giving whichever candidate is within striking range a little extra push when it gets close to the election.

[B Knotts]

I like this quote better, from his press conference:

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I can tell you that we have to clean house in Sacramento. The most important thing is that we bring business back to California. There are more businesses leaving California now than ever before. When businesses come back, revenue comes back, when revenue comes back we can afford all kinds of different programs that are very important. We want to make sure that the children are not left with without any books. We want to make sure that our children have the books, that they have their place in the classroom. We want to make sure that they have after school programs. We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people. We have such a great state, there's no reason why we are in the state we are in today.

With "libertarian" views like that, I imagine businesses will be falling over themselves to get back into California under Gov. Ahnold.</sarcasm>

[Miss Marple]

This morning Schwarzenegger was on Fox and Friends. He was asked if he wanted the President to campaign with him. His quote, and I am trying to be as accurate as I can, was this.

"The President, while he is doing a fine job, has his own issues and problems to deal with. This is a California matter, and we don't need presidents, or ex-presidents, for that matter, or senators to come into the state and tell us what to do." (A good answer with a subtle Clinton slam as a bonus...HA!)

Coupled with the President's statement that this was an issue to be settled by the people of California, and the statement of the White House press briefer, I do not think the president is going to interfere.

Neither the President nor Arnold are stupid. They do not want this to turn into a referendum on Bush and draw the ire of the rabid, Bush-hating leftists into the discussion. The focus needs to be on California issues, Davis mishandling of the government, and positive choices by electing Arnold. The fact that the Guardian picked this story up and is trumpeting it tells me that the left is trying to draw Bush into the race. It isn't going to happen.

[Dead Corpse]

Perhaps you have forgotten that Gore actually got more popular votes, and came within a whisker of winning in the Electoral College, as well.

And about half the people in the US are on the government dole, ergo: they are democrats. This is the same populace that voted for Clinton twice. That Bush won by such a slim margin is no reason to crow.

So President Bush should have stayed out of the 2002 election? Shall we give Mrs. Carnahan her seat back, along with all the other Democrats who went down to defeat, in part because the president was out there "interfering in state elections"?

So you approve of a federal official interfering in State elections? That's rather telling... Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it, how long it's been going, nor why. Slumming down to the level of your poltical opponents only makes you like them.

But you just said Bush shouldn't interfere in state elections! I am not taking sides in this; I'm not from Cali. I just want a Republican to win! If that turns out to be McClintock, that's fine by me. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the president helping giving whichever candidate is within striking range a little extra push when it gets close to the election.

Bush WILL "interfere". With his own re-election bid before him, he'd give Lucifer a pardon if it would score votes. That is what lifetime politicians do. If he's going to "interfere" anyway, he may as well give a grudging nod towards a REAL conservative instead of a Kennedy connected figure-head with more in common with Davis and the Democrats than the GOP.

[Coop]

I tend to agree with you. One other downside of Bush getting involved is it would be yet one more example of him and Rove actively working against conservative candidates. That would not help him in '04.

[Sabertooth]

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?

First, I don't think your numbers are likely, but in any event...

Yes, Bush should stay out, period. There was no bounce for the GOP here, only blowback as Bush tried to annont Riordan to settle a political score with Secretary of State Bill Jones, CA's only statewide office-holder and the primary candidate most knowledgable of Sacramento. Jones offended Bush by backing McCain in 2000, and the Dynasty always strikes back.

Since no one wanted Riordan, we ended up with the inept Simon, who Bush-Rove further saddled with crony Gerry Parski Parski sowed dissension in the campaign, even as he stalled fundraising, his alleged forte. By the time Bush got to CA, the Simon campaign was limping, and Bush's support was tepid. Bush further hamstrung Simon's campaign with the national edict that Republicans couldn't mention Illegals in 2002, nevermind the tens of billions they cost us here annually.

Bush and Rove have demonstrated that they don't know how to beat Democrats in California, so no, I don't want them here. They had nothing to do with this recall, and they should let events play out.

This is actually smart for Bush, as well, because win or lose, it's better for him if his fingerprints aren't on this recall.

[John O]

Perhaps you have forgotten that Gore actually got more popular votes,

The above statement is a lie.

Tons of absentee ballots across the country were not counted as the outcome was already settled (In several states where Bush won big and the absentee votes were not numerous enough to change the election these votes weren't counted) Absentee votes probably run 80% republican.

Vote fraud was endemic in the 2000 election. Once you subtract out the multiple voters (Marquette University students as an example), the illegal voters, the dead, the manufactured voters (Voting machine in my trunk? I don't see any voting machine in my trunk!) you'll find that President Bush won by 20% or more.

The reason the dems were so upset is that they knew that Bush would win big and they FAILED to manufacture enough fraudulent votes to win. They screwed up and it cost them the White House

Our job is to insure that vote fraud dies with the democrats

[Dead Corpse]

Coupled with the President's statement that this was an issue to be settled by the people of California, and the statement of the White House press briefer, I do not think the president is going to interfere.

In light of that, I ammend my last statement in my previous posting. Now that Arnie has called that one out, it'd look bad for the President to stick his nose in.

I wonder if Arnie plays chess?

[katana]

Loyalty is something that Bush values above almost anything else. He may not come out in favor of Schwartzenegger or any of the other Republicans running, but in spite of obvious differences in philosophy, he's also not going to undermine a man who he sees as a loyal friend to his family.

Besides, Dubya understands that politics is the art of the possible and he will tolerate the candidacy of anyone who has the best chance to put an "R" next to the name of the governor of the biggest state in the union. You're right that lots of folks around here won't like it.

[B Knotts]

Tons of absentee ballots across the country were not counted

I remember hearing this at the time, but it was false then, and is still false now. Regardless of the margin of victory, every ballot had to be counted by law.

[wku man]

Yeah, pretty much so. Amazing how upset the Pubbie Kool-Aid drinkers get whenever anyone points out the truth that their party is no longer "the" conservative party. With friends like these...

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[B Knotts]

I agree with everything you've said. It would be a huge mistake for Pres. Bush to appear to be interfering in a recall. Also, he should send Rove on a fact-finding mission to Timbuktu for a couple of months.

[MattGarrett]

from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER.COM

If these are the choices in the California recall election, who gets your vote?

Gray Davis 34%
Arnold Schwarzenegger 66%

TOTAL RESPONSES: 229 (so far)

[Miss Marple]

You are assuming that Arnie is in oppositin to the President? I think instead that this was probably agreed to by both sides in order to let Californians decide to get rid of Gray Davis and not let the recall get dragged into the anti-war, anti-Bush mess.

Arnold should not be underestimated. In his own right he is a formidable campaigner, and I do not think that there is any motive here on either his part or the part of the President except to let Californians handle this themselves.

[Dead Corpse]

I do not think that there is any motive here on either his part or the part of the President except to let Californians handle this themselves.

I could be giving them both too much credit, but I don't trust ANY "apparent motives" where politicians are concerned.

One too many "Read My Lips" type incidents.