PRESTOPUNDIT -- A Good Blog at a Great Price. Guaranteed.

Roy Rivenburg's RECALL MADNESS:

Question: Is it true the recall is part of a right-wing conspiracy to undermine democracy and steal the election?

Answer: Yes and, at last count, roughly 60% of California voters were in on the plot. However, many of them joined against their will. The only way to protect yourself is by avoiding direct eye contact with that big blue ring Schwarzenegger has been wearing. Repeat: Do NOT stare into the ring. It has hypnotic powers.

Question: I'm having some trouble keeping up with the onslaught of newspaper opinion columns about the recall. Any tips?

Answer: Most political columnists ran out of original things to say a week after the recall began. Some are now recycling attack columns from 1978 and 1980, replacing the words "Proposition 13" and "Ronald Reagan" with "recall" and "Arnold Schwarzenegger," respectively. So far, the public hasn't caught on, even though one careless writer recently lambasted Proposition 13 for "chickening out of a televised debate with the other propositions."

To save you the trouble of reading additional columns, here is a handy summary of their major themes:

Attack Schwarzenegger for not taking a position on the issues or, when he does take a position, attack that.

Tweak the Terminator for agreeing to just one candidate debate while conveniently not mentioning that Davis did the same thing when running against Bill Simon last November.

Criticize Schwarzenegger for having no political experience. Or, for a change of pace, criticize him for being just like every other politician.

If any reader of this newspaper spots an opinion column that breaks the pattern (i.e., the writer praises Schwarzenegger), be the first to e-mail us and you can choose a gift from our box of prizes.

Via LA Observed -- who said this about the LA Times columnists last week:

The L.A. Times' columnist lineup on the recall, meanwhile, looks more like a glaring mistake every day. They each got the gig because of their style or expertise and not their views, but the more they write the clearer it is they inhabit a fairly narrow range of the political spectrum. King, Lopez, Morrison, Skelton and Hiltzik are all recall disbelievers with only nuances of difference in the details. It already feels way old. Wouldn't one or two of those voices suffice, especially if complemented with a newly vigorous exchange of ideas on the op-ed page? Unfortunately that's not happening either, yet.