I don't think having a GOP Calif. gov. will necessarily help W in 2004

[diplomats]

Clinton won Calif. in 1992 and 1996 when Repuke Pete Wilson was governor. I'm against the recall on principle, but I'm not sure having a GOPer in the governor's mansion makes it harder for us to keep the state in 2004. I read that N.Y. Times article that talked about Clinton advising Davis. In it, the reporter said many strategists close to the WH think Calif. is unwinnable in 2004. OK, I may be looking at a silver lining here but does the party of the governor really influence who wins the state?

[Clete]

1. That is all well and good if they also play by the rules. And if

they played by the rules, Gore would be President today. So if they are after the electoral votes look for a lot of deceptive maneuvers before the election of 2004. Did you read the article on the front page of DU? I think it summarized what is going on.

[LynneSin]

2. If a republican gets elected and Bush then decides to help bail out Cal...

It'll look real partisan on his behalf and I don't think Californians will be too pleased to think Bush only cared about their state when he was working with a republican.

Plus, some folks think a republican governor will help bring "Black Box Voting" into California. That law would have to pass the California Senate and House, which I believe is in control by the democrats.

Personally, I think Arnold ruined his career in politics by getting involved in the recall process. If he wins, he probably won't be able to save California in the 2.5 years until the next governor election in 2006 (unless there is another recall :eyes: ). If he loses, no one will ever take him serious again as a politician. It would have been better for ARnold to wait until a real election instead of this circus with 135 some candidates running for governor.

[diplomats]

14. Also, if the recall passes

the candidate with the highest vote percentage wins. That means Arnold could win with 20 percent of the vote. How could he possibly govern that way? Talk about a nonmandate.

[FredScuttle]

23. I politely disagree, Lynne....

This was the PERFECT opportunity for Arnold to run due to the fact that there's no GOP primary hurdle. In a regular election, he'd be torn apart by the wingnut faction in CA and I doubt he would appease enough of the "God, guns and no sodomy" handjobs to win the primary. This way, he gets to plunk down $3000 and get on the ballot, no questions asked.

[Booberdawg]

3. I do

Having a Repub in charge of the election machinery and appointments helps bush a great deal.

He wouldn't have won FL without Jeb and Harris in charge of the election machinery

[Brian Sweat]

8. The Governor is not in charge ot the election machiny

The Secretary of State (a Democrat) is.

[tom_paine]

12. Doesn't matter

You think that's going to matter to Charles Kane and the rest of the ex-CIA Bushevik Private Army?

It would be hard enough to keep these weasels out of the henhouse if the Democrats controlled California because their's always a Freeper willing to sell out the Principles of the Founding Fathers.

It will absolutely impossible with the clueless Ahnold in charge, beholden as he will be to the Imperial Family for all it's under-the-table help.

Not to mention the rest of the VRWC controlling California from top to bottom and stem to stern.

[CMT]

4. Governors don't make a huge difference

Look Gore's three best states: Massachusetts, RI, and NY all had GOP governors in 2000 (still do). Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin had a GOP Governor in 2000 and Gore won (all three of these states now have a Dem governor). I'm not saying that I don't want a Dem governor in Sacramento in 2004 I'm only saying that it does not necessarily mean that California will be in Bush's pocket in 2004.

[UrbScotty]

9. A couple of things

First, you can add New Mexico and Pennsylvania to that list.

Secondly, also remember that Gore took California by 13 points.

[0rganism]

5. If it were JUST Ahnold, I wouldn't be so worried

Unfortunately, the GOP is hooking some heavy equipment to his candidacy. George Schultz, I would NOT trust one iota.

[VOX]

6. Sounds a bit like "whistling in the graveyard"...

Things have changed radically (literally) for the worse since '92 and '96. The Rethugs are much more organized, they have tons of corporate money in their coffers, and they are interested only in a one-party nation. Why is there even a recall election taking place in California? Why now, just one year before the 2004 election?

Putting Arnie in the catbird seat opens the door for the right-wing money machine to take the reins in California. Arnie will just be another puppet -- like *, he knows nothing about public policy, nor does he care to. He will be a muscular figurehead only -- the shots will be called from the White House.

Buzzflash.com, among others, has articulated the Rove-Arnie connections in detail.

Let's not even let this thing get that far -- let's vote against the recall with all the passion we would put behind a progressive prsidential candidate.

We should feel that committed against this obscene recall.

[diplomats]

10. It is obscene

I oppose it 100 percent.

[tom_paine]

7. That example occured in another country, NOT Imperial Amerika

Ahnold gives Bushevik operatives, ex-spooks, Young Repoublicans, and others with no morals or concience... now with more "safeties off" than ever (but not ALL...you'll know when the Busheviks have reached the "anything goes" stage by your missing friends and neighbors)...absolute and total access to California's Voter Database and of course all of those modem telephone numbers and codes for those special "election night downloads".

1992 and 1996...well that was just another country, a completely different nation and several lifetimes ago (yeah severeal lifetimes...Carnahan, Kennedy Jr. and Wellstone's lives, to name a few).

[Snellius]

11. Bush seems to see Arnie more as a rival than an ally

The prospect of a popular liberal Republican poses a real threat to the hard-core neo-con born-agains for whom Bush bears the cross. Besides Arnie's more buff.

[tom_paine]

13. Horeshit. Rovian misdirection.

n/t

[Snellius]

19. Nicely put, but Georgie sounds like he's jealous

Q What do you think of Arnold Schwarzenegger and would you consider campaigning for him?

THE PRESIDENT: I will never arm wrestle Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Laughter.) No matter how hard I try, I'll never lift as much weight as he does.

On edit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030808-1.html

Q Are you going to do anything for Arnold? You say he'll be a good governor. You're spending two days in California.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to campaign for George W., as you know.
Q Will he get a plug in the speech, a mention?
THE PRESIDENT: I think I've answered the question, and yes, he would be a good governor, as would others running for governor of California. Like you, I'm most interested in seeing how the process evolves. It's a fascinating bit of political drama evolving in the state -- in the country's largest state.
Q It's also the biggest political story in the country. Is it hard to go in there and say nothing about it?
THE PRESIDENT: It is the biggest political story in the country? That's interesting. That says a lot. That speaks volumes.
Q You don't agree?
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to -- I don't get to decide the biggest political story. You decide the biggest political story. But I find it interesting that that is the biggest political story in the country, as you just said.
Q You don't think it should be?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think there's maybe other political stories. Isn't there, like, a presidential race coming up? (Laughter.) Maybe that says something. It speaks volumes, if you know what I mean. But, yes, it's an interesting story, it really is. And I'm looking forward, like you are, to seeing the outcome of the interesting story.
But, no, I'm going to go, I'm going to talk about -- now that you've asked, are you going on the trip?
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Well, you'll see me speak to Marines and their families, thanking them for their service to our country, reminding them that what's taking place in Iraq is essential to U.S. security. Then I'm going to go to a national park, talking about the fact that we believe parks ought to be revitalized, and talk about the initiatives that I've laid out to do that. And then, of course, I'll be doing a little spade work for the '04 campaign. (Laughter.) One of the most important political -- (laughter.)
Have a great day. Thank you all.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030813-2.html

[DagmarK]

17. Bush ain't in charge.....His BOSSES declared Arnie the new Gov.....

and whether bush likes arnie or not.....amounts to a personal problem that bush will just have to get over.

[Emboldened Chimp]

15. Even if Arnie wins

He faces Democratic opposition in both Houses and in his cabinet. He won't get a thing done.

[DagmarK]

16. Hmm, I think it will help Bush just fine .............

to get a GOP governor installed in Calif...just in time to SCRAP the voting machine task force!

[Bombtrack]

18. What people here don't get about electoral politics

as that even if they can't win it, it still helps to be able to come closer. National elections are mostly about allocating money and resources, and having arnold would force dems to spend a greater amount of time, money and resources in the largest state in the country

and that hurts dems big time.

we need a candidate who can naturally earn alot of votes in every state, county and town if we don't want 1984 all over again

thats why we need Edwards

[diplomats]

20. But why?

Clinton didn't have to spend extra money or time in Calif. in 1992 or '96. And what if Arnold's no more popular than Davis? That's a real possibility since governing's a heck of a lot harder than making a movie.

[Bombtrack]

22. 92 and 96 were cakewalks nationally compared what 04 will be

this election will be like 84 or 88 with certain candidates, and like 60 or 68 or 2000 with our best candidates

[Eloriel]

21. Please, people, some of you still aren't getting it

First of all, there will be a rush to the new machines because of the nightmare the vote will be -- see my thread on the subject. (And btw, Dems can be bought, too, you know.)

The machines are NOT safe and if you were to take a look at all that's known about the machines, election results where they were in use, the Repug ties of the companies, scandals involving some of the companies or their principals, etc., etc., you would NOT be so sanguine about this.

Again, see my thread on the subject, and a post where I did a data dump on just SOME of the links with important information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=180842

Eloriel