09/16/2002 Archived Entry: "Reno Is About Done; Bush's Endgame"

It looks like the lead has narrowed to just over 5,000 votes for McBride, but Reno is saying that she will be done by Tuesday, with whoever being declared certified as the winner. McBride only has until Thursday to announce his Lt Governor. Peterson and Castor seem to be the ones closest to him, with Penales having his chances dropped. Reno is supposedly crafting a damning collection of voting irregularities, and is going to lay it on Bush's head. Without a doubt, having McBride's blessing. And he will need hers to win in S. Florida. Having Castor as his Lt. Governor solidifies his lead even further in the toss-up mid-region of Florida. Having Peterson eats into Bush's N. Florida base. Either of those is a political winner, as long as he has Reno's support for S. Florida. I'd bet he goes with Castor. As an a former education commissioner and state senator, she will force the kindergarten and class-size initiatives into the forefront, and has the Tallahassee expertise McBride needs. As a woman, McBride breaks new ground in choosing Castor, and the media surge on his campaign for this will create mounting coverage that they will translate into strong momentum.

The class size amendment would limit kindergarten through 3rd grade classes to 18 students, 4th through middle school to 22 students and high school classes to 25 students.

Classrooms with 30, 40 even 50 kids won't get smaller if a coalition of politicians have their way - a group including former House Speaker John Thrasher, state Comptroller Bob Milligan and former U.S. Senator Connie Mack. The Coalition to Protect Florida says it supports smaller classes, but not forcing the state to come up with as much as 27 billion dollars over 8 years to pay for it...
"Over half a million people have signed petitions and said we knew this is our only chance because the legislature and government are never going to do this for us," said Damien Filer with the Coalition to Reduce Class Size. "If we want it done we're gonna have to do it ourselves, and that's why they're running scared."

The beauty of this is that McBride doesn't have to campaign for the initiative, it's not his. Bush had forced through the "price tag" in order to bloat the qoute into the hundreds of billions. Supporters of the ballot measure disagree, saying the true cost of smaller classes averages out to only about a billion a year. McBride has his own $1B for education in the form of higher cigarette taxes, which he will easily defend. Bush is forced onto the defensive, and without any initiatives of his own, looks more like a roadblock to progress, than a reformer.

What's Jeb Bush gonna do once he loses? Probably go to the White House and join his brother's Global WOT for Oil.

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Replies: 23 comments

Bush sealed his fate when he campaigned against the class size initative. If Mcbride chooses Castor its even more of a smack in the face for Bush, because Mcbride will further rip into Bush's major weakness- his inability to solve the education crisis. While I still think he'll choose Peterson; Castor would be the better choice towards Mcbride's plans on education. After the B.S. re-count or whatever is done, Mcbride will be marching to the governor's office with continued momentum and no real negative that Bush can stop him with. If Bush wants to call Mcbride wreakless; Mcbride should do the same with Bush by bringing out the fact that he raided the state employee pension funds just to balance the budget.
We'll see if Jeb challanges Nelson in 06' for his senate seat, or for Gramm's in 04 if he retires. He'll lose that too!

Posted by RUDY @ 09/16/2002 06:53 AM PST

I am glad to see Reno doing the right thing here in Florida. And she should definitely put the blame where it belongs. I think McBride will have the enthusaistic support from Reno and that this will ensure South Flrodia comes out in force.

I anxiously anticipating his running mate selection.

Posted by Ced @ 09/16/2002 07:05 AM PST

LOL Watch Jeb Run straight into oblivion. The voters have rejected Jeb before in a great Republican year (1994) so they can beat him this year with a solid candidate like Bill McBride. Just imagine if Jeb had won in 1994 would he or W have run in 2000? Babs said she always expected Jeb to be the success, to a certain degree she was right :)

Posted by GaDem @ 09/16/2002 07:12 AM PST

Too much attention is paid to US changing the world or wanting to dominate the world, but in the end it is the world that is changing America through heavy American indebtedness as a result of budget deficits, and through demographic changes, immigration, immigrants and folks born outside the country having more children, etc. The US may want regime changes in the rest of the world...however by pulling money out of the US stock market, the foreigners want regime change in the US, and if they decide not to finance our deficit, we would have a deflationary spiral and collapsing stock market. Obviously Wolfowitz, Bolton and other know nothings do not still understand the complexity of the world. The only two persons holding this Administration together are Powell and Condi Rice.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/16/2002 08:09 AM PST

How come the verdict against Simon's firm being overturned never made this page? Oh wait, I forgot...this site is just as Democratic-biased as CQ is GOP-biased.

Sorry...not trying to start a fight. Just making a point.

Posted by RWG @ 09/16/2002 09:39 AM PST

Does this site claim to be unbiased?

Posted by Vlajos @ 09/16/2002 09:50 AM PST

Hell no. Just Accurate in forecast and prediction. Davis will win by 7-10%

Posted by MyDD @ 09/16/2002 10:13 AM PST

MyDD,
I know, the RWG's comment was ridiculous. My question was directed toward him.

Posted by Vlajos @ 09/16/2002 10:14 AM PST

RWG, I don't think Simon is exactly going to be running ads saying a judge threw out the jury's fraud verdict. Now Davis is running ads about a failed S&L run by Simon. If you assume that Davis will be running negative ads continuously until election day, it really doesn't matter what they are about. Davis has plenty of material to work with and plenty of money.

I know you hold out hope, but you will almost certainly end up as frustrated as Democrats were in 1994, which was the mirror image of this year's election.

Posted by CA Pol Junkie @ 09/16/2002 10:20 AM PST

"I know you hold out hope, but you will almost certainly end up as frustrated as Democrats were in 1994, which was the mirror image of this year's election."

GOP losses this year would not be anywhere as bad as the Dem losses in 1994. However, the GOP is on its way to becoming an extinct species in Illinois just as it did in California, and if they are not careful, the trend may start in Michigan as well. In 2000, 70% of the Arab Americans voted for Bush, now only 10% plan to vote for Posthumus. GOP antagonized Hispanics in California and now it is antagonizing Arab Americans in Michigan. It has become "white is right" party...but you cannot expect much from a party that has become dominated by southern white interests and confederate flag wavers and other know-nothings!

Posted by G. C. Raj @ 09/16/2002 12:20 PM PST

I felt kind of lucky in '94, I was totally tuned out the whole 9 months leading up to the election, off on an adventure... didn't even have a clue as to what would happen. Got a hold of a USA Today from the day after the election, and realized that millions of other Democratic votes were in my same boat.... but at least I didn't have to see the agony coming-- and besides, with Clinton in the WH, it didn't seem like it was that bad. A lot of partisan Republicans feel the same way, though they haven't been lulled to sleep by a trifecta that lasted as long.

Posted by MyDD @ 09/16/2002 12:27 PM PST

I didn't mean to imply that there will necessarily be the overall Democratic tsunami this year like the GOP had in 1994. I was referring specifically to the CA governor election in 1994. Pete Wilson was very unpopular but moderate and loaded with money for negative ads and Kathleen Brown was not moderate but pretended to be and ran out of cash. The roles are reversed this time, but the formula is the same.

Posted by CA Pol Junkie @ 09/16/2002 12:36 PM PST

I'll be a bit more optimistic then Mydd.
Davis 58
Simon 42
bank THAT!

Posted by Kobe @ 09/16/2002 04:22 PM PST

I'll bank that 3rd parties will get more than 0% of the vote in that race...

Posted by RParker @ 09/16/2002 04:27 PM PST

I'd give Davis about 52%-54%. Simmons will linger in the 40's while the Greens probably top 5%. 58% aien't gone happen for Davis this time. He got it 4 years ago but he's got nowhere to go but down.

Posted by RUDY @ 09/16/2002 04:54 PM PST

Any thoughts on potential of a Riordan write-in? How difficult is it under state law? Its reported that he's begun raising money for an effort and, as much as Davis and Simon are detested, I would expect that could have an impact.

Posted by MississippiDem @ 09/16/2002 08:49 PM PST

In reference to this site no mentioning that the Simon case was thrown out on appeal - notice how little press that got anywhere.

The California press barely mentioned it. Sfgate had a pithy piece on it, as did the LA times, etc.

Posted by MC @ 09/16/2002 09:20 PM PST

Simon is not out of the woods. The fact that a jury of 12 unanimously rendered a verdict against Simon's company is still fact. The fact that Simon was obliviously doing business with a convicted drug trafficker is still fact.

And yeah, the campaign contributions are flowing in to Simon's campaign, post-appelate ruling -- to the tune of a whopping $189,000 last week.

As one democratic consultant said:

"It's a good decision for them, in the same way it's better to be on life support than dead."

Even before the judge issued his ruling, the Davis campaign began airing a new attack ad on Simon's next legal hurdle -- his role in the failed Marina del Rey Western Federal Savings and Loan, the subject of a federal trial set to begin next week in Washington.

Posted by Kos @ 09/16/2002 11:09 PM PST

I doubt Riordan could win a write-in, his name is too hard to spell. I've seen firsthand how a write-in campaign works (Smith in WA 3rd), but she had an easy name to spell.

Still, if Riordan were to enter as a write-in candidate, chances are that it would hurt Davis more than Simon.

Posted by MyDD @ 09/17/2002 08:13 AM PST

"Davis 58
Simon 42"

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa, oh do excuse me! Besides being way off on Davis' margin of victory, you forgot that third parties are probably gonna get least 10 percent here.

This site isn't supposed to be unbiased? Geez...coulda fooled me. Thought it was supposed to keep up-to-date on political news, regardless of which party it hurts or helps? Oh well...still good analysis of individual races.

"The California press barely mentioned it. Sfgate had a pithy piece on it, as did the LA times, etc."

So much for that conservative media the left speaks of, huh? They don't point out that Simon wasn't named in the lawsuit either.

I think what so many Democrats (And hell, even Republican and independent analysts) are refusing to admit is that Davis gained ZERO ground in the polls after the ruling. The Field Poll before the verdict had Davis up by 7 points, the one after the verdict had him up by 7 points!

Posted by RWG @ 09/17/2002 11:34 AM PST

Davis 49-Simon 46. Only because CA is Democrat trending.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/17/2002 02:15 PM PST

RWG:

This site is unbiased as you are. You complain about the liberal Vs conservative judge's ruling and how the Dems do not make waves about the liberals ruling in their favor.

Similarly, just like you do, if a Dem is in power when the economy stinks, the GOP would make it a big issue..."are you better off today than you were four years ago." On the other hand, if the economy is in trouble and the GOP is in power, the party would assert that one person or one congress cannot influence the economy. Pray tell me where were your kind of GOPers in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was running for re-election? Why was Carter then responsible for the economy? Guess what? For the same reason Bush is responsible for the economy right now.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 09/17/2002 02:21 PM PST

RWG,
Who said this site didn't have a bias?

Posted by Vlajos @ 09/17/2002 03:06 PM PST