Posted on 08/23/2002 6:33:35 AM PDT by rightwing2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush will appear at two private fund-raising events for California gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon today, but he will not share the stage with the aspiring politician when he addresses Hispanic community leaders in Santa Ana, just south of Los Angeles.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The cable company. However, the cable company gives away the access on a first-come, first-served basis. The number of times the local PA channel repeats "Air Force News," "Navy News Today," and other out-of-area programming indicates that they have a LOT of access available--it's just that few are using it.
And Simon has used talk radio and the Internet EXTENSIVELY.
Simon only started using talk radio after his third (or fourth) campaign reorganization, and only after Mark Larson kept pestering his campaign about it.
Hmm. Your argument, then, is that the state GOP needs to "pre-qualify" candidates for the primary ballot by running a full Dunn & Bradstreet/LEXIS/NEXUS scan on them, anyone connected to them, and any and all business entities they are connected to, BEFORE letting them file for the ballot.
I believe its better its over now...
No, it isn't. He's gotten this thing tied to him, and even if the judge throws out the verdict, it won't be undone in the court of public opinion.
If he actually was elected he'd be trying to have a trial while serving as Governor... That'd be worse...
Better than gambling on a jury's decision-making at a critical moment in the campaign.
???? If you consider one word an argument, I have a feeling you use a lot of four-letter words. :-)
You are right of course. When the President walked past Bill he spit in his eye and then reached back and gave him a wedgie, just like Keanu Reeves gave the Grim Reaper in Bill and Ted II.
You mean like calling names, pointing fingers and throwing fits every time something doesn't go the way we want?
Want to see some professional behavior? How about complimenting the Simon team for getting a nice photo op with the President of the United States? How about giving them some credit for getting a busy President to come do more fundraisers, even when the current political climate could be considered risky for said President?
You've had no problems spewing the insults and criticism. Why don't you now show us some of that professional behavior you'd like to see, and give credit where its due?
I hope so, but I wouldn't be so sure. Giuliani did extensive television support for Mark Earley here in the Virginia gubernatiorial race, and it accomplished squat. And that was back when Giuliani was at the height of his popularity nationwide. And California is a hell of a lot farther away from New York City than Virginia is.
Interesting point. However, since I have had absolutely no problem arguing my point, to include facts to back up assertions and more facts to dispel myths and lies, we can now safely say that folks with the ability to argue also can use the word "bitter."
But if you like, you're welcome to FReepmail me a list of approved verbage so I don't make a similar mistake next time.
I'm also a Californian, and a Republican activist. You and I have not been watching the same campaign unfold, apparently. I thought Dan Lungren's 1998 campaign was pathetic, but the Simon campaign has reached a new level of ineptitude. Look, I voted for Simon in the primary and will vote for him in the general come November. But I'm also a realist and an experienced campaign volunteer who knows the political game from the inside. The President is doing the right thing in keeping his fund-raising commitments to Simon while protecting his political capital. Nothing can shore up a campaign when the candidate, himself, is unable to take the public relations lead on his own behalf.
And speaking as a right-of-center Californian who just cringes at the thought of Sacramento becoming even more of a Marxist haven than it already is, I am sick to death of the string of inept Republican candidates for statewide office that we've been stuck with over the last several election cycles. Don't we have any strong, charismatic, Republicans with leadership skills left in this state?
I do not work for Simon's staff; I am not required to behave as a campaign professional. I am not seeking a position on Simon's staff. I merely expect those who DO seek out said employment to act like they know what the hell they are doing.
As for the photo-op: yes, I agree that Rove's people did a competent job putting it together. Maybe they can share some pointers with Simon's team.
Yes we do. Bill Simon, mild mannered millionaire, philanthropist, former prosecutor and successful businessman...
Conservatives just can't seem to accept that sometimes they back the wrong horse. They were so determined to get Riordan out of the race that they did not even bother to do any due diligence on Bill Simon. I lived in California and worked on Pete Wilson's 1990 campaign, and I can tell you there is a universe of difference between Wilson and Simon, both as candidates and in the caliber of their campaigns. People forget that Wilson won in 1990 against Dianne Feinstein, who was a media darling and ran a pretty good campaign; and in 1994 he won against Kathleen Brown, who was also a media darling. He buried both of them by running a smart, disciplined campaign with operatives who knew what they were doing. That 1990 campaign was textbook perfect. Conservatives hated him, but eventually they came on board because Wilson was an excellent governor and ran excellent campaigns. Then it all fell apart in 1998 because the conservatives took over and nominated Dan Lungren, who alienated all the swing voters and ran a lousy campaign. There should never, never, never have been any opportunity for Gray Davis to be Governor of California in the first place!!! Thank you, California conservatives.
I knew Simon was toast the second I learned that he hired Matt Fong's "campaign team." I put that in quotes because Fong's campaign was a complete joke. But someone has apparently told Simon he can't hire the people who ran Wilson's campaigns because they are too "moderate" and the conservatives will be upset. At least that's what I've heard from political friends out there.
The same thing happened in Virginia and New Jersey. John Hager would be governor of Virginia today if conservatives had not fought him so bitterly. Mark Earley was too conservative and ran a horrible, horrible campaign. Now we are going to be stuck with Mark Warner and higher taxes. And I love Bret Schundler, I've known him since 1983, but he was just way too conservative to get elected in New Jersey.
Face it, conservatives blew it with Simon, Earley, and Schundler. You can't cover this up by now trying to blame George Bush for them losing. This is the tired mantra of bitter conservatives. For years it was "Republicans are losng because they won't run REAL conservatives that energize the base." Now that the REAL conservatives are getting their asses kicked, it's President Bush's fault.
Since you decided to critique my ability to argue, care to provide a reason or two as to why you think this way? Or are we playing "Do as I say and not as I do?"
As for my one-word argument - Baloney! Riordan wasn't a moderate. He flat out despises the GOP. Why he's got an "R" after his name, I dunno. But talk about Republicans sitting out an election. I just don't see Riordan vs. Davis as much of an election, especially after Grayout got through with him.
Or perhaps Bush and his guys see how Simon has blown what appeared to be a very good chance and they don't want to do anything (i.e., support a losing candidate) that may lead to further declines in his own polls.
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.