Bush Declines to Share Stage with Simon at Hispanic Event

The Washington Times ^ | August 23, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[rightwing2]

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.

[OldPossum]

Just curious. On what basis do you think that President George W. Bush (not "George the Lesser") "has no desire to elect conservatives"? Surely, you have some rationale for this. Don't you?

[DodgeRam]

I agree with you coop. Bush has supported many conservatives especially here in texas. Simon has to start showing some results now that he taken a hit. If he can be within 5-8 points of Grayout, or tied before october the white house will be out there backing him. The non committed voter wanst to back a winner or a fighter. If he starts showing either during these tough times the ship will right itself. By the way is any conservative orgs like club for growth runnning ads against davis. I know they supported simon in the primary?

[OldPossum]

Thanks for your support of coop, who has the right attitude. We should be more optimistic and supportive in any way possible of Republican candidates. We all know who does not represent our best interests.

[Coop]

Bush doesn't waste time on underdogs, the West, or party building,

???? Then why all the fundraising? Why all the meddling in GOP primaries??

[skeeter]

I live in Florida. Jeb knows how to run a decent campaign. He's been out there working the hustings since the Spring, leaving nothing to chance! Simon has been the Invisible Candidate, allowing Davis to saturate the airways with lies and innuendo.

Yeah, and I'd wager Bush's opposition doesn't have a 4 to 1 advantage in campaign funds along with a state media establishment that is 100%, unashamedly partisan.

Simon is fighting an uphill battle. Those trashing him are just making it harder.

[vbmoneyspender]

Does anyone really think the last scandal concerning Bill Simon has been revealed? People who do shady crooked deals don't do just one and quit. They do lots of them.

What shady, crooked deal are you talking about? Do you mean the one, where his family's firm tried to fire a convicted drug dealer and then had a Los Angeles jury sock it to the firm because they didn't fire the guy as nicely as the jury wanted them to? If that is what you are talking about, can you tell me (a) explicitly what it was that the firm did wrong, and (b) what involvement Simon had in hiring the convicted felon and firing him?

[section9]

Oh, I'm sorry. Is it November already??

You sure love to type. It's just a darn shame you couldn't have used all your time and energy to support this campaign, especially when times were good. But you have no problems at all piling on when times are tough. The real problem isn't Bill Simon (though he certainly has made some mistakes) - it's the incredible pessimism and laziness and oh so many Republicans and conservatives.

No. I'm sorry. Good campaigns begit a good press. Good campaigners find a way to create their own luck and argue their own issues without being sandbagged by surprises.

Ronald Reagan had the Press and the Democratic Party against him in 1966. Then he went out with one of the best campaign teams in the country and won California by almost a million votes. He kicked some ass.

Yes, Pete Wilson won as well. But then he allowed himself and his Party to be identified as "anti-Hispanic", thus killing off support within the Hispanic community for Republicans.

Good policy begits a good press. I am hoping that Simon can turn things around Coop. You have no idea how much I want to be wrong about Simon and Simon's chances. I really hope that you end up being right about Simon and I end up being wrong. I mean, my brother-in-law, my sister, and my mother are moving out to the People's Republic to live, for crying out loud. I want California's education system to be rebuilt into the model it once was for the country.

But Gray Davis is too morally corrupt to do that.

I want to be wrong, Coop. I really do. I know that Bill Simon would set the right priorities for California's future. I just don't think that I am wrong, here.

Your one hope is that the Davis people get comfy and that the Democrats stay home, thinking that their guy has one. Your second hope is that California's Republicans have a "broken glass" mindset on election day. That is all that will save you.

Jeb is way ahead here in Florida and he will win this election, against either McBride or Reno, because he campaigns as if he's five points behind and as if Gore is in the White House. Katharine Harris is doing the same thing in the 13th Congressional District on the West Coast. She'll kick ass as well. Simon would be wise to follow their example.

Okay, it's gut check time. I've beat up on Simon bad, but not as much as Gray Davis has. Now you get to find out what this guy is made of. Can he turn this around? Hmmm? Can he do this alone and argue the issues and focus on Davis' weaknesses? I argue that he has made a critical error of allowing himself to be defined by Davis as a result of the fraud case (which will probably be overturned, in late October). He had an advantage in the Spring and allowed it to be pissed away. Not the sign of a good campaign or a good campaigner.

As I said, I want to be wrong, Coop. I really do.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Dahoser]

It continues to be stupefying that a party who stood ramrod straight behind a guy who lied in court, got himself disbarred for his troubles and just happened to be the highest elected official in the land at the time, and then stood ramrod straight behind the guy they nominated as his successor who sloughed off his own illegalities by saying not that they were illegal, but that they were okay because there was no controlling legal authority, is able to get the average shmoe to believe that it's the other party who is dirty. And worse yet, to have people in that other party agree.

[Scholastic]

A March 25, 2002 column by Don Feder had it right. Greg Ganske, Liddy Dole, Lamar Alexander, Norm Coleman....not to mention helping pro-death incumbents. See a patern? Simon asside, what does it say about him that he wanted Richard Riordan to be the governor of CA? Actions speak.

[Afronaut]

"I think Republicans are going to have to accept that mediatic imperfection is normal."

Understatement of the year.

How many true consevatives are left in Washington?

[vbmoneyspender]

No. I'm sorry. Good campaigns begit a good press. Good campaigners find a way to create their own luck and argue their own issues without being sandbagged by surprises.

Do you mean like when GWB got sandbagged with his DUI conviction the weekend just prior to the election? Less forgiving people might say that not putting that information out months earlier was a screw-up of monumental proportions because it almost cost Bush the election. But then again most Republicans are team players and they continuing fighting for their side no matter what the press says about the chances their candidates have to win.

[Coop]

Bush and Harris both have significant financial advantages compared to their opponents. Simon has just the opposite.

[Coop]

Very good point. That was a monumental blunder, taking a rather minor issue (had it been brought out during his discussion of his drinking problems) and nearly losing the election over it.

[Hellwege]

your quote: the most competitive campaign since 1994

so how many campaigns wre there between? 1 or even 1? wow, that much!!

[Cold Heat]

Kudos to Bush for sending a message to Simon: no Bozos need apply

I certainly agree with you on this one.(as well as others)

I too saw Simon as a asset and then I was severely dissapointed by the fraud case.

His handlers should have anticipated the worst and kept him out of the primary. This is shameful.

[rightwing2]

Sometimes it does seem that the only people the Bushes support are the Bushes themselves. I would imagine that G.W. thinks Simon is a loser, and the Bushes, who have had their share of defeats, don't like to appear with "losers." They want what GHWB called the "big momentum." Probably G.W. thinks he can easily be reelected without liberal CA.

I strongly suspect that you are correct. I think that this is really dangerous thinking. The Bush team is always careful not to do anything that would threaten the President's poll numbers, but if they abandon otherwise strong Republicans like Simon and Earley out of fear that the President might lose popularity, it will very likely come back to haunt them come Election 2004. The President was very lucky to be elected without winning California, but he may not be so fortunate next time. The point is he cannot afford to write off my former home state so prematurely.

[section9]

Do you mean like when GWB got sandbagged with his DUI conviction the weekend just prior to the election? Less forgiving people might say that not putting that information out months earlier was a screw-up of monumental proportions because it almost cost Bush the election. But then again most Republicans are team players and they continuing fighting for their side no matter what the press says about the chances their candidates have to win.

I was not forgiving of George W. Bush and the DUI affair. Bush's last week was a series of blunders. He should have let the 1976 affair out in 1999, when it would have caused a minor stir, but would not have affected the outcome of the Republican primary contest. He sat on it, like an idiot, and got what he deserved: a Gore popular vote majority.

I have said this time and again in other posts. Your use of it is a straw man. Bush let the Dems use a dirty trick on him that he could have foreseen. Stupidity happens to the best politicians. In the case of Simon, however, stupidity seems to be repeating itself.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[rightwing2]

Bret S. in NJ was the real horror of that election. George the Lesser was AWOL for both Early and Bret long before 9-11, not that I am defending Early. George the Lesser has no desire to elect conservatives and Im wating for him to stup for Ted Kennedy and Geroge Miller the way he did for Pete L. in Texas.

Yes, Bush was absolutely AWOL during the 2001 Campaign cycle and that definitely caused the GOP to lose the Governorship and Lt. Governorship of our home state. However, I don't think Shundler could have won in NJ even with Bush's support due to regrettable NJ state party infighting. Although Bush did stump for Democrat incumbents against their Republican challengers as Governor of Texas, he has thankfully not done much of that since becoming President. I really wish Bush would follow up his endorsement for conservative hero Sen. Bob Smith by actively campaigning with him, but sadly I know that is not going to happen.

[GraniteStateConservative]

...a similar post at FR on the subject of Bush agreeing to be seen with Dick Monteith, but not Simon

[GraniteStateConservative]

Davis has a new ad (basicly an old ad with a new tag line) that ends "If Simon's business partners can't trust him, how can Californians." Forgive me if that's not the exact language, but I heard about it last night on CNBC.

Not preparing voters or the WH for the possible verdict was D-U-M-B and shows his lack of experience in campaigning-- much like his release of his tax returns, and other things.