SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (4998)8/14/2003 2:20:20 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793696
 
How to play the California situation? If I were Rove, and Arnold wanted it, I would have Bush come out for Arnold.
Lindybill@decisionsdecisions.com


Schwarzenegger Outcome Could Affect Bush in 2004
Gubernatorial Win in California Would Bring Potential Risks as Well as Rewards, Strategists Say

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 14, 2003; Page A05

President Bush arrives in California today with his political fortunes increasingly tied to the powerful but unpredictable figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Bush has kept a distance from the Oct. 7 ballot drive to remove Gov. Gray Davis (D) from office, and he has declined to endorse the movie star and bodybuilder who has overnight become the leading Republican and most popular candidate on the ballot. "He would be a good governor, as would others running," is all Bush would say yesterday, tempering earlier remarks that appeared to favor Schwarzenegger.

For better or worse, however, a number of Bush aides, Republican strategists and pollsters believe the Terminator's fortunes in the recall, if only because of his dominating presence in the race, will affect the president's reelection prospects next year in the nation's most populous state -- and possibly beyond.

One prominent adviser to Bush said the excitement behind the muscle man's candidacy means "California's not lost forever." On the other hand, said GOP strategist Scott Reed, "If Arnold flames out after this historic buildup, it'll look like Republicans can't get their act together.

"Like it or not, the Bush White House is a little pregnant on the Arnold candidacy," Reed said.

In the best scenario for Bush, Davis is ousted, Schwarzenegger triumphs with a united Republican vote and California's bleak fiscal situation begins to improve. With the governorship in popular Republican hands, the state's 54 electoral votes, once a lost cause for the GOP, could come within Bush's grasp in 2004.

Alternatively, if Schwarzenegger's candidacy implodes, it could leave the Republicans without an obvious candidate to face reinvigorated Democrats. And Schwarzenegger's candidacy could turn the vote into a referendum on racial politics because he supported an immigration crackdown in 1994 that continues to infuriate Hispanics. Such a backlash could hurt Bush beyond California in 2004.

Bush's aides and advisers are caught between the potential risks and rewards. Though rumors swirl about involvement in the Schwarzenegger campaign by Karl Rove, Bush's top strategist, the White House is officially mum. "I haven't asked anybody to get engaged, and I'm not aware of anybody that has been engaged," Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said yesterday.

The White House finds itself in the awkward position of playing spectator in a race that could alter Bush's political future. Though Rove cares so much about California that an associate calls the state "Karl's Ahab," the recall was driven by people at odds with the administration, such as Shawn Steel, who was pushed out by Bush allies as state Republican Party chairman. "It changes the fortune for the presidential campaign dramatically if we win," Steel said.

A Bush adviser acknowledged that "the recall was not something that we wanted to happen because it potentially gives the Democrats a chance to say what's happening in California is all about the recall process and not about the governor and his Democratic leaders." The adviser said Bush's 2004 prospects would be hurt if Davis, or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D), prevails and performs well in office, or if a Republican wins and does poorly.

"There is fear that, beloved this year, the [new Republican] governor could be unpopular next year," a Bush campaign official said. "Maybe it's better to keep Gray Davis as a punching bag."

Still, Schwarzenegger's decision to join the race, and early polls showing broad support, has buoyed the Bush campaign's hopes of a lift in 2004. "Schwarzenegger is the only candidate who has a chance to achieve what we wanted," one adviser said, adding that the two leading conservatives in the race, businessman Bill Simon and state Sen. Tom McClintock, have too much of a "hard edge" to add to Bush's appeal in the state.

Don't expect Bush to say that publicly, however. Bush aides believe that appearing to meddle would backfire and boost Democrats' efforts to link the California recall to the 2000 Florida recount. Still, California Republicans say, lawmakers and others tied to the White House have been putting what one called "heavy pressure" on Simon and McClintock to drop out -- and one GOP strategist close to the White House expects one or both to quit.

The recall effort has already produced benefits for Bush. It has frozen the Democratic nominating contest in a desirable spot for him -- with no obvious challenger. The attention to California is also depriving the Democratic candidates of attention and is expected to cramp their fundraising.

Also, George "Duf" Sundheim, who became chairman of the state GOP earlier this year, said the recall has already boosted Republican voter registration, a potential benefit to Bush next year. "Whatever excitement there is will wear off, but the impact on registration will be lasting," he said.

Even if a Republican governor does not deliver California to Bush next year, Republicans believe it would make Democrats spend more time and effort to win the state.

"We can distract the opposition long enough to make them vulnerable elsewhere on the national political landscape," said Dan Schnur, a California GOP operative.

Before a Republican can get to Sacramento, however, Bush and Schwarzenegger must avoid a potentially damaging bout of racial politics. Bush has made outreach to Hispanics a top priority, and he let it be known that he opposed California's Proposition 187 in 1994 that limited services for immigrants.

But Schwarzenegger's campaign has announced that he favored Prop. 187, and the candidate has tied himself to former governor Pete Wilson and his aides, who championed the measure.

Further complicating the matter, another proposition, this one to prevent the state from requesting racial details used for affirmative action programs, will appear on the ballot Oct. 7 -- keeping the issue in focus.

"The racial initiative on the ballot will encourage unions to turn out their minorities," said a Bush adviser, concerned that Schwarzenegger's position could become "Wilson revisited."

John Zogby, an independent pollster, said memories of Prop. 187 could hurt Schwarzenegger, and Bush, by bringing angry Hispanics to the polls, particularly because Bustamante, the leading Democratic candidate if Davis is recalled, is Latino. "Prop. 187 has legs beyond California," Zogby said. "It is the ghost of the ballot in October and could very well be the ghost in 2004."

Allen reported from Crawford, Tex.
washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (4998)8/14/2003 2:32:50 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793696
 
The Democrats are really marginalizing themselves on this one.

Majority Against Blessing Gay Unions
60% in Poll Oppose Episcopal Decision

By Richard Morin and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 14, 2003; Page A01

A strong majority of the public disapproves of the Episcopal Church's decision to recognize the blessing of same-sex unions, and a larger share of churchgoing Americans would object if their own faith adopted a similar practice, according to a new Washington Post Poll.

So broad and deep is this opposition that nearly half of all Americans who regularly attend worship services say they would leave their current church if their minister blessed gay couples -- even if their denomination officially approved those ceremonies, the survey found.

As courts, companies and congregations across the nation consider what standing to give gay couples, the poll demonstrates strong public disapproval of any religious sanctioning of same-sex relationships. It underscores the sharp distinction most Americans make between relationships blessed by the church and those recognized by the law.

"Americans are saying, 'We're willing to move pretty far on this issue, we're much more tolerant than we used to be, but don't mix it up with religion and God,' " said Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.

Opposition to blessing gay unions is strongest among Americans who go to church every week, The Post's poll found. Three out of four frequent churchgoers opposed the Episcopal convention's decision, and a similar proportion said they would object if their own faith took a similar step. But even among those who acknowledged that they rarely or never attended church, nearly six in 10 objected to blessing gay couples.

Julio Rincon, 28, an infrequent churchgoer in Albany, N.Y., said he would not mind if a gay couple registered a civil union "down at City Hall." But, he said, "I do have a problem if it were to take place in a church."

The poll also found, however, that public acceptance of same-sex civil unions is falling. Fewer than four in 10 -- 37 percent -- of all Americans say they would support a law allowing gay men and lesbians to form civil unions that would provide some of the rights and legal protections of marriage.

That is a precipitous, 12-point drop in support found in a Gallup Organization survey that posed the question in identical terms in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy and Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his dissent that the court was on a slippery slope toward legalizing gay marriage.

Other surveys have found, however, that some opponents of same-sex unions would tolerate extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign found that 33 percent supported granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples "as long as churches do not have to recognize or perform these marriages." An additional 17 percent would accept extending those rights to gay couples but "do not support it." Nearly half, 47 percent, said they were opposed.

For the Post survey, a total of 1,003 randomly selected Americans were interviewed Aug. 7-11, including 420 who said they attended services at least once a week. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall sample and 5 percentage points for the results among frequent churchgoers.

The survey found that 60 percent of all Americans opposed last week's decision by the Episcopal Church's general convention to give its bishops the option of allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships in their dioceses. Thirty-three percent favored the decision, and 7 percent were unsure. Nearly two in three respondents who attended church at least a few times a year said they would object if leaders of their own faith took similar action.

"I am entirely against it. I don't think it is correct -- at least that's the way it is in the Bible," said William Nelson, 71, a Catholic who lives in Malden, Mass.

Nelson considers the Episcopalians' decision as part of a coordinated assault on American institutions and values.

"What you're seeing here is the big play by gays and lesbians to control a lot of things," he said. "Take TV, for example. How many programs came on this year that have to do with gays and lesbians? . . . The [Episcopal] priests are thinking, if [they] come out against it, they're going to lose those people and lose quite a bit of money. The straight ones won't leave."

In other telephone interviews, many religious Americans acknowledged that they were torn by feelings of sympathy toward gay couples and what they understood to be the teachings of their church.

Several respondents drew a sharp distinction between giving gays equal protection under the law and authorizing the church to bless or otherwise sanction what they believe is a relationship condemned by God.

"I don't believe what the [Episcopal] bishops did is a good thing," said Sloane Whitehead, 32, an Episcopalian who lives in Lexington, S.C. "I am a reasonably tolerant person. I guess I would be for giving same-sex couples some additional protection from the government. But I draw a distinction between church and state, much like the Constitution does."

Whitehead fears that the church's decision is a "baby step" toward approving gay marriage, which he said would weaken the church's commitment to children and families.

"What they have done is bend slightly. But if they bend here and bend there, suddenly things change. . . . Society should be flexible to change, but I question whether religion should be."

Others disagree. Darlene Midlang, 55, a Lutheran who lives in North Branch, N.Y., said she agreed with the Episcopal Church's action and would be pleased if her denomination followed in its footsteps.

"It seems like the church is always blessing wars. Why shouldn't it support love?" Midlang said. "If people love each other and they want to have a public recognition of that love, why shouldn't we support it?"

Opposition to the Episcopalians' decision is strongest among evangelical Christians, the survey found. More than eight in 10 rejected blessing gay unions, and two out of three said they would abandon their home church if it began performing commitment ceremonies for homosexual couples.

"If my local church blessed gay unions and [the decision] was not movable, I definitely would leave," said Sue Tegtmeier, 51, of Sumner, Iowa, who is a member of the Vineyard, an evangelical group. "It's against the word of God. . . . The Lord didn't make these rules to be mean to us. We will find our greatest amount of health and peace by following his law."

Among Americans who attend church at least a few times a year, 47 percent said they would attend services elsewhere if their church blessed same-sex unions. An equal number said they would not leave.

Whitehead, the Episcopalian who opposed blessing ceremonies, is among those who would reluctantly continue to worship at their churches even if the priests conducted blessing ceremonies.

"That may seem contradictory," he said. "I believe in tolerance. I am torn and not certain what is right or wrong here. I don't believe making some kind of statement by walking out sends the right signal in front of God."

washingtonpost.com