Yes to Bush’s money, no to Bush’s picture

March 24, 2006

Whenever the White House is asked if the president’s dwindling public support will prove to be a liability for Republican candidates, the Bush gang dismisses the idea out of hand. As proof, they point to the president’s long list of invitations from GOP candidates nationwide, all of whom are anxious to have the president help fill their campaign coffers.

But as the AP’s Tom Raum noted, there’s a bit of a catch to that argument. Candidates are anxious to get Bush’s help in raising money from the GOP faithful, but they don’t necessarily want to be seen with him.

Many worried Republicans on the ballot in November have been pushing away from the White House, not wanting to be dragged under by President Bush’s sinking approval ratings and growing anxiety over Iraq. That doesn’t mean they’re also fleeing his cash offerings, however. […]

Republican candidates don’t want to be forced off message by such a visit and “have to spend the next two or three days talking about the president’s policies … or what happened yesterday in Ramadi (Iraq),” [GOP consultant Rich Galen] said.

It has resulted in some fancy GOP footwork as candidates in tight races step away from Bush and Cheney on divisive issues but dance toward them when the subject is money.

When one candidate avoids being seen with the president, it’s easier to dismiss as an isolated incident. When it happens repeatedly over a short period of time, it starts to make Bush look like a photo-op pariah.

As Raum explained, the examples have been piling up. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) was notably absent from a Bush event this week. Cheney was in New Jersey to help Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr., but Kean didn’t show up until Cheney was gone. Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele skipped Bush’s speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in November. Minnesota Senate candidate Mark Kennedy skipped an appearance by Bush at a 3M Corp. plant outside Minneapolis.

In Nevada, at a local GOP gathering, Sen. John Ensign (R) tied himself to Reagan, not Bush. At the same event, Rep. Jon Porter (R) told reporters, “I believe the president has his agenda, his focus. I have mine. I will always run on mine.”

‘Jon Porter (R) told reporters, “I believe the president has his agenda, his focus. I have mine. I will always run on mine.” ‘

Note: “I will always run on mine.”

Doesn’t every crook?

  • This is especially sad as the Republicanites November 2006 campaign is one of the only two things Bush is ‘thinking’ about right now.

    The other being Iraq.

    Which might be considered a good thing by us, as Bush’s concentrated attention is almost guarenteed to undermine the Republicanites’ attempt to retain the house and senate.

    After all, look how well Iraq is going (compared to how well Bush supposes it is going).

  • “… Sen. John Ensign (R) tied himself to Reagan, not Bush ….”

    If the Democrats had their act together, Reagan would be seen for what he was, the first act of the Bush Crime Family’s take-over of government. It was Reagan, after all, who (while running for President!) declared “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, it IS the problem.” Cynicism and “strangled government” and reich-wing wackoism and faith-based government followed, and the best the Dems could come with was a lukewarm GOP wannabe like “don’t ask, don’t tell” Bill Clinton.

    Democrats have got to remember their roots — the vast majority of the American public. Part of doing that is rounding up ALL Republicans in the same corral (or boardroom).

  • The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a front page story today on a Santorum fundraiser this evening. The story fits in nicely with the AP story.

    Low-key is a relative term when it comes to the movements of the most powerful politician in the world, but this visit will be quieter than most of the dozens of previous trips to Pennsylvania that Mr. Bush has made during his tenure. While reporters will be able to glimpse the president’s arrival and departure on Air Force One, there will be no media coverage of the event at Birchmere, the Sewickley Heights home of businessman Richard P. Simmons. The campaign anticipates about 500 guests at the $1,000 per person event. Those interested in a souvenir could contribute $10,000 for the prospect of having their picture taken with the president.

    An earlier presidential fund-raiser for Mr. Santorum, in which he raised $1.7 million in Montgomery County last June, was also private, as was a Central Pennsylvania event with Vice President Dick Cheney. At this early stage of the campaign, Mr. Santorum said of the president, that rather than standing side-by-side at more public rallies, “the best use of his time for me is to help us raise money.”

    In the spring of 2004, by contrast, Mr. Bush chose a more public Pittsburgh event to endorse and raise money for Sen. Arlen Specter who was facing a primary challenge from former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey. Beyond fund raising, however, the political point of that event, was to showcase the presidential support to conservative Republicans tempted to stray from the moderate incumbent.

  • We have to start publishing the names of these people still giving to the Republicanites such as Man on Dog Santorum and W.

    If nothing else, it might make some of their spouses divorce them.

  • Reagan is responsible for bringing the Fundamentalist Christian whackos to the Repug party as a significant force.

    I highly recommmend the book “Sleepwalking Through History” for a great overview of the Goldwater/Reagan right-wing movement, and how it has taken over this country. It also provides good ideas of how we can use some elements of that model to take our country back.

  • goatchowder,

    I agree! Here’s one of the “elements of that model” which can be used to take our country back: I’m Takin’ my Country Back”

    To hear it sung, just click the left button. I think the DNC should adopt this song as the party’s National Victory song from now till November.

    This will do more for the country than all the namby-pamby elected Dems combined. Hell, the newspapers may finally mention Feingold (my fave ticket’s still Gore/Edwards).

  • They’re all thinking ahead to when Bush is out of office, and all these cowardly academics who feel they can’t criticize him too directly now start saying that he was one of the worst, if not hte worst, president in history, etc.

    It’s going to become an embarassment to have been photgraphed palling around with this guy

  • I’m waiting to see the day when a Republiican candidate sees Bush come into the room, and screams “Gatecrasher!” to the event security folks.

  • Swan,

    There may well be some “cowardly academics who feel they can’t criticize him too directly now”. But I assure you that there are many academics (some of whom risk losing funding for themselves, their students and research) who have been in the lead in saying Bush is the worst president in history. This, while the elected Democrats and the “independent press” have been doggedly lapping up everything the Bush Crime Family tosses out to them.

  • If the Democratic opponents of these candidates have any sense they’ll make ads about this little “problem” of the Republicans. Something like “Senator Santorum didn’t want to be seen publicly with the leader of his party, George Bush. But he was more than willing to take money that the President helped him raise. Bush appeared at events for Santorum on…”. You get the idea. Produce them on the cheap and run them at just the right time to contribute to doubts about their opponent when Bush has had some bad news associated with him closer to election time, which you know will happen and it sure won’t help the Republicans.

    • Comments are closed.