Folks are gonna believe what they want to believe.
November 5th .. Believe what you want .. BUT VOTE!!!
DUMP DAVI$ & the Den of Socialists
GO SIMON
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]
You don't get the point. It's the litigation that is the problem. It could have been a divorce, a old traffic ticket, anything that is a negative and get's alot of press.
You cannot beat a incumbant this way.
November 5th .. Believe what you want .. BUT VOTE!!!
DUMP DAVI$ & the Den of Socialists
GO SIMON
That's quite possible. Gray Davis is very serious about running in 2004 for the WH. He knows a big win this year will be all he needs to be right in the thick of the 2004 invisible primary. He's waiting for the right time to drop the big bombshells.
And there is the flaw in your thinking. Simon has run a Pi&& Poor campaign almost from the beginning.
The President has only so much political clout and should not waste it on those who shoot themselves in the rear.
Bush tries to keep his word.
Also I am surprised, Bush always has sold out the country to "hispanics" before, why not now again?
Chris is also right that many loyal Republicans would happily chat about the blunders of the 2000 Bush campaign-- the one where he lost the popular vote (a loss, which, if repeated, will cause Simon to lose in CA since there's no such thing as an EC for state races). Gore's 48 hour barnstorm while Bush napped hurt immeasurably. There were other screw-ups as well. The debates were the only thing that got Bush back on track after a series of blunders.
Maybe Simon can make equal use of the debates.
In the near future, many wont need much encouragement.., and many others are already there....
From the Washington times, July 18th
What can we say about Bill Simon, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in California? He makes every mistake, and then some. In November, we can write a postmortem on why Mr. Simon lost to Gov. Gray Davis. Or we can go public now, hoping someone will fix the mess.
After all, Mr. Davis has been a miserable governor. Even California, liberal as it is, deserves better. Mr. Simon, you recall, was the surprise winner in California's Republican primary. He defeated Richard Riordan, the White House favorite. Unfortunately, all the president's men failed in their due diligence. The former Los Angeles mayor self-destructed.
Mr. Simon's first mistake last year was hiring Matt Fong's campaign team. You may remember Mr. Fong. As California state treasurer, he was favored to defeat Barbara Boxer. She remains California's unimpressive junior senator. That's because something strange happened on the way to Mr. Fong's easy win. His campaign advisers forgot to define him. So the Boxer camp did, with help from Mr. Fong's own campaign team. Running Mr. Fong for senator in the nation's largest state, they defined him as a mama's boy. Their signature television spot was an endorsement from Mr. Fong's mother. Now, they're back. Their primary spots for Mr. Simon were not much better: A talking head who removed his glasses for drama (how original). Mr. Simon's signature television spot called for cutting the state's capital-gains tax (as if anyone cared).
How, then, did Mr. Simon win?
Mr. Simon long ago was endorsed by Rudy Giuliani. (Mr. Giuliani held a grudge because liberal Mr. Riordan had refused to back him over Hillary Clinton.) Suddenly, after September 11, Mr. Giuliani was an asset to Mr. Simon, whose campaign then used Mr. Giuliani to introduce Mr. Simon to the Republican electorate. More importantly, Mr. Riordan faithfully and systematically alienated that Republican electorate. And, finally, negative TV ads on Mr. Riordan saturated the Republican electorate. They were funded not by Mr. Simon, who never planned to win (Mr. Simon merely was laying the groundwork for a future statewide race), but by Mr. Davis, who spent $7 million to savage Mr. Riordan on Republican issues. Mr. Davis did what Mr. Simon refused to do — confront Mr. Riordan. But Mr. Davis' ads cleverly hid the required legal disclaimer, so there was no anti-Davis backlash among Republicans.
At that point, California Secretary of State Bill Jones would have won the primary. But Mr. Jones, ever a casualty of his stupid switch from George W. Bush to John McCain after New Hampshire, could not raise campaign money. He spent all of $200,000 on TV spots. So Mr. Simon then spent his millions and won by default. (In fact, Mr. Simon's campaign foolishly had Mr. Simon loan the campaign money. That means if he were governor, Mr. Simon would be paid back by "special interests." This helps neutralize his attack on Mr. Davis' aggressive fund raising. Why didn't Mr. Simon's campaign instruct him to give his campaign the money?)
Actually, Mr. Jones was just what the Republican Party needed to defeat Mr. Davis — a warm body. Instead, Republicans got Mr. Simon, and his baggage and campaign consultants who never helped empty the baggage.
Republicans in California are in disarray. Consider the president's go-to guy, Gerald Parsky. He feuds with Party Chairman Shawn Steel over party reorganization. Who cares? Don't they want to win an election? What an opportunity for Republicans. Mr. Davis has high negatives and awful ballot numbers. He's just plain unpopular. But when Mr. Riordan lost the March 5 primary, Mr. Simon thought he — Mr. Simon — won.
Since then, it has been downhill for Mr. Simon. While Mr. Davis struggled with a $20 billion-plus deficit, Mr. Simon was hardly visible. Worse, there was no concerted attack on Mr. Davis. Apparently, it never occurred to Mr. Simon's high command to orchestrate surrogate assaults to keep Mr. Davis off-balance. Instead, Mr. Simon's top-heavy campaign added layers of even more "senior strategists." It seemed like an old-age home, except some of Mr. Simon's senior advisers are junior, especially in campaign experience.
Mr. Simon's campaign endlessly reorganizes. Four campaign managers in four months. No wonder. How do you manage a campaign without a strategy or plan?
Why doesn't he see the obvious? How can he attack Mr. Davis for mismanagement? Indeed, Mr. Simon's on-again, off-again TV campaign is quixotic. There is no theme, no message. Mr. Simon's TV budget? It's even less credible than Mr. Simon's campaign polls. After all, remember Dan Lungren? He spent $30 million to lose to Mr. Davis in 1998. His campaign polls always showed the race as "close" and "within a few points."
Meanwhile, Mr. Simon remains on defense. He never decisively answered predictable attacks on his involvement in a failed S&L. It's as if his campaign never heard of Charles Keating.
When Mr. Simon was asked to release his tax returns, as former Republican governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson did, Mr. Simon's inept handlers said they would check with his accountants — in New Jersey. Now, the IRS is suing Mr. Simon's accountants for alleged tax scams. That gives new legs to past attacks on Mr. Simon, who remains bogged down defending himself. The campaign touts Mr. Simon's business success but refuses to document it. This is amateur hour.
Mr. Simon may be an honest and decent man. But without media-savvy campaign advisers to direct him, what happens? His conflicted press operation yields this result on the television news: Mr. Simon looks like he's caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
Last year, Mr. Simon could have squared away his finances. Instead, his campaign advisers avoided asking him tough questions. They are nice people who make the candidate feel good. Our guess is that Mr. Simon did not come clean with them. They and he agreed — don't ask, don't tell. Rich guys should know better, even before Enron, Adelphia and WorldCom.
And now, we see the consequences of Team Simon's unpreparedness. Asked this week whether he had paid California income taxes, Mr. Simon could not answer. Then, he called the reporter back to say he had. By all accounts, Mr. Simon's campaign has had major problems with message and its press operation. Yet, in the latest curious development, Mr. Simon has named the head of his troubled communications shop as the new day-to-day campaign manager.
The White House raised $5 million for Mr. Simon. Now, it promises another $15 million if Mr. Simon's campaign shapes up. What does that mean? That could be money down the drain unless Mr. Simon really cleans house. Who is in charge?
And what happens when Mr. Simon loses? Mr. Simon's original core group of lucky incompetents will blame the White House. And Republican "moderates" will blame abortion, a non-issue in this campaign. Everyone loses here, except Mr. Simon's well-paid campaign bumblers and Gray Davis. Mr. Simon was never ready for prime time, but he could have been prepped. Maybe he still can.
There's still time to win this one.
If I did not get enough formatting in this, I apologize. I am not good at it. The point of this being, this article does not even touch on the latest Simon scandal.
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.