Reasons to Vote NO on Proposition 66 .. Governor Schwarzenegger�s AnalysisUPDATE: Jerry Brown, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian join Schwarzenegger in the NO on 66 campaign.* A wealthy businessman whose adult son is in prison for killing two people and seriously injuring another spent $1.57 million to put Proposition 66 on the ballot. If it passes, his son will be released early. So will some 26,000 other convicted criminals .. * Proposition 66 weakens California�s �Three Strikes Law� by creating a new loophole that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and flood our streets with thousands of dangerous felons, including rapists, child molesters, and murderers. * If Proposition 66 passes, arson, residential burglary, attempted burglary, criminal threats, felony gang crimes, felonies like drunk driving in which innocent people are seriously hurt or killed and certain violent sex crimes by juvenile criminals will no longer be considered �strikes.�
UPDATE II: Movie buddy Jesse Ventura is ripping Schwarzenegger in a paid endorsement spot for Indian gambling interests backing Prop. 70, which Schwarzenegger opposes.
A SoCal must listen -- today between 3 - 7 John & Ken of KFI - Los Angeles are doing a complete run-down of the California ballot. Here's their "Voter Guide". Listen live over the web here.
And here's an analysis of Schwarzenegger's 2004 campaign activities. Quotable:
The governor has largely pleased his Republican base with an anticipated campaign trip to Ohio for the president, GOP endorsements and prodigious fundraising .. [but so] far, Schwarzenegger has limited his campaign appearances for GOP legislative candidates to a few real contenders, such as Monday's event for Silicon Valley Assembly hopeful Steve Poizner.
Another great site is Daniel Weintraub's California Insider blog. Among other things, Weintraub has a regular "Where's Arnold?" feature. He recently linked to this interesting LA Times story, "Vietnamese Show Clout in Funding":
The growing political and economic muscle of the nation's Vietnamese community is on display in two Orange County elections, in which a pair of candidates � including one who is expected to become California's first Vietnamese American state legislator � has attracted nearly $1 million in contributions. Most of that money has gone to Van Tran, a Garden Grove councilman running as a Republican for a seat in the Assembly. Tran has gathered about $800,000 both from traditional GOP donors and from Vietnamese Americans locally and across the country. About a third of his cash came from outside Southern California, including money from fundraisers in Philadelphia, Dallas, Washington state and Virginia.And the best way to get a read on the next California political earthquake is to take a look at the blog of the 1,000,000+ listener John & Ken Show in Los Angeles. Let's just say that the issue of immigration is not going away.
Finally, the OC Register has come out with its recommendations on the 16 statewide inititives. Here's a sampler:
Proposition 63 -- Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 MillionThe top state income tax rate would rise to 10.3 percent from 9.3 percent. When a similar increase to 11.3 percent was imposed in 1991, many wealthy headed for such places as Nevada and Texas, which have no state income taxes. There is no logical reason this group of taxpayers should be singled out to pay for these services. Mental health issues should be part of general budget discussions. Vote No.
Proposition 64 -- Limit on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws
Supporters call it the "Stop Shakedown Lawsuits Initiative." The state's unfair-competition law, known as Section 17200, allows private attorneys to enforce the law by threatening legal action against small businesses that might have violated some jot or tittle of the code. Prop. 64 would stop the abuses, shifting responsibility for representing the public from private lawyers to district attorneys and the attorney general, where it should be. Vote Yes.
Proposition 67 -- Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge
Although emergency medical care in California is in critical condition, this proposition comes up with the wrong solution: $500 milliona year in tax increases, mainly by adding 3 percentage points as an extra surcharge on the use of phone lines, raising the existing 0.7 percent tax to 3.7 percent of your monthly telephone bill. Californians already are over-taxed. Vote No.
Proposition 71 -- Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds
This is a dubious way to fund medical research, especially on such a controversial issue. It would call for $3 billion in bonds that would, with interest, cost a total of $6 billion from the general fund over 30 years. The state general fund would be dinged about $200 million a year. The proposition would establish a California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to regulate and fund stem cell research. Setting up state taxpayers to do the job of private venture capitalists is a bad idea and could result in politicizing the research as wellas precipitate a crowd of institutions seeking ballot-box funding. Vote No.
Proposition 72 -- Health Care Coverage Requirements
This is a long step toward socialized medicine, setting up a new state agency to provide medical insurance to companies that don't provide their own. It could raise business costs as much as $7 billion a year. There are other ways to address health care coverage concerns. Vote No.
I order, pay, and walk with my Diet Coke through the restaurant, taking a seat on the patio that puts me and my garb on prominent display for the 20 or so patrons. A wave of distressed glances ripples in my direction, but I remain unmolested. Yet as I finish my soda, two hipsters saunter past. One of them, untucked shirt hanging over his jeans, gapes at my shirt and mutters, "Asshole," only slightly under his breath.(via Memeorandum)
(And check out Patterico for occassional posting from the famed "Angry Clam".)
(One year ago I blogged the recall day and night with a baby in hand. But this daddy no longer has a baby -- he has a wonderful little boy. Time does fly.)
UPDATE: Schwarzenegger gets a report card from the voters. Quotable:
Overall, 65 percent of poll respondents approved of the Republican governor's job performance, a figure that has held steady since May and approaches the popularity of former Gov. Earl Warren more than 50 years ago. But by nearly a 2-1 margin, the same voters opposed the idea of a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens to run for president if they have been citizens for at least 20 years.See a related story here.
See also this.
UPDATE: "The story is out there" -- the story went out over LA station KFI640 yesterday afternoon on the John & Ken show. The program has about 1,000,000 listeners. The story will hit newstands in Southern California today in the LA Weekly.
UPDATE II: See my latest update here.
That�s total and complete nonsense. I never claimed to have encountered Russian occupiers in Styria. I remember very clearly: we crossed the Semmering Pass in my uncle�s VW Bug into the Russian sector. There, as a little boy, I saw the Soviet tanks.See also my debunking of the "Schwarzenegger was lying" story from the other day, which includes a link to the original AP story from Vienna.
And in related news, young Matthew Yglesias has closed his comments section, due to a sustained troll attack. All coming from Glenn and not from me, I trust. I sympathize with Matt. Comments sections can be fun, informative -- insightful. The blogosphere gets a dose of juice from them. But they never stop being a pain in the ass. I've gotten rid of them twice. I miss the good stuff (write me). I don't miss the extra work.
Elsewhere, some folks have no sympathy at all for Mr. Yglesias.
From 1945 until 1966 Austria was governed by a coalition of the Socialist and People�s parties. The number of positions each party received depended on its share of votes in parliamentary elections. This framework was extended to the economic sphere, as the state, industry, labor, and agricultural interests developed a partnership and created a modified market economy. Prosperity rested in part on nationalized industries, such as electric power plants and oil refineries; the government also controlled the banks.The nationalization of industry and banking isn't a Milton Friedman thing, it's a socialist thing. In fact, the former is exactly the kind of thing which happened in Britain when the Labour Party socialists took power in 1945. That's what socialists do when they "modify" a market economy -- they create large sectors of socialism within it. If truth be told, the communists in the old U.S.S.R. could do no more. And I'm a bit surprised that an academic would insist -- as one does in the AP story -- that free countries and socialist countries are mutually incompatible things. Most academics for decades have insisted just the opposite. But perhaps the Her Professor does have an point there after all ..
Harvard smartie Matthew Yglesias thinks he's been vindicated. It looks like Atrios didn't read Schwarzenegger's speech either, but calls him a liar anyway. And Timothy Noah does a MoDo on Schwarzenegger and says Schwarzenegger "implied" things no sane person would infer. Good job, Tim.
UPDATE: Jan Haugland points out that the historians quoted in the AP article must not have read Schwarzenegger's speech, and adds this:
The historian may be forgiven, at least partly, for not having read the context of the speech when journalists presented him with his former countryman's words. But those left-leaning journalists who presented this can hardly be ignorant of the fact that historical facts support Schwarzenegger's version. His part of the country were not run by the Soviets, but he could (and, he says, did) travel to the parts that were.UPDATE: Powerline has more, including a picture.Another criticism is that Austria wasn't run by socialists just after World War II, like Schwarzenegger said it was. The conservatives, historians say, were in power both after the war and just before he left for the US. This is a matter of cultural translation. Somebody will have to tell me how the conservatives are in Austria, but I know that Norway is a social-democratic country whether it is run by the Labour party, which calls itself socialist, or the coalition of Christian-Democrats and Conservatives that are currently in power. The non-socialists, who actually call themselves bourgeois parties (!), differ on some policies, but none oppose the state controlled welfare state we have. That is a socialist country, and I would not be surprised if Schwarzenegger is correct in considering all the major parties in Austria, then and now, socialist, at least by American standards.
The day before the launch of the ad campaign, construction materials manufacturer Quickflash Weatherproofing from Huntington Beach announced that it would be relocating to Las Vegas and the city of Henderson passed zoning changes to accommodate the relocation of intermodal distribution company Pacer Stacktrain's corporate headquarters from the Oakland area, bringing 350 job with it. In addition, three California companies had contacted the NDA to inquire about relocating to Nevada the same day Schwarzenegger launched the campaign ..Of the 60 new companies that relocated [from California to Nevada's] Clark County .. last fiscal year, 32 came from California .. ".
"[Schwarzenegger] likes government and is happy to see it grow .. His beliefs on social issues and the environment, meanwhile, are squarely in the Democrat mainstream. His problem is that the Democrat lawmakers who are most vulnerable, who he might be able to challenge and unseat, also tend to be centrists. They are his natural allies. And if he defeats them, chances are the Republicans replacing them will be to the governor's right on most issues. Which could actually make his job more difficult."
On Saturday Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd, "�If [the Democrats in the California legislature] don�t have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, �I don�t want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don�t have the guts, I call them girlie men."
"If these [Democrats] won't do the job, I'm going to announce each of you a terminator. Nov. 2 is judgment day. That's when you go to the polls."That, at least, is how the AP reporter tells the story. The LA Times quotes Schwarzenegger this way:
"I want each and every one of you to go the polls on Nov. 2nd. That will be judgment day. I want you to go to the polls. . . . You are the terminators, yes!"Amazing that two reporters attend the same speech, and yet report completely different remarks. Someone here is making up sentences -- perhaps both. In any case, here is Schwarzenegger's "girlie-man" line, at least as recreated or artistically imagined by the LA Times reporter:
"[The Democrat legislators] cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers.' . . . I call them girly-men."UPDATE: Hugh Hewett, who MC'ed Schwarzenegger's Ontario rally, has Schwarzenegger calling the Democrat legislators "girly boys". Ouch.
UPDATE II: "By 2006, California could have a dramatically different political landscape, with part-time and more moderate legislators and a more streamlined state bureaucracy, if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's renewed threats against the status quo catch fire with voters. As the governor fights against a Legislature he says is resisting his calls for change, he is campaigning this weekend against individual lawmakers." -- The AP's Jim Wasserman.
UPDATE III The LA Times joins in the effort to chop Schwarzenegger down at the knees: "A strange thing happened when budget talks began dragging and Schwarzenegger shifted into campaign mode to get his way. Democrats didn't seem to care. Increasingly inside the Capitol, there is a sense that when Schwarzenegger goes to a mall in Chico or a Mexican restaurant in Dixon to talk politics, the people flock to see the Terminator, not the governor. There is a corresponding belief among Democrats that the governor's personal popularity doesn't automatically translate into support for his policy proposals."
We'll see in November, won't we.
Let's wreck is day and vote NO on 66.
MORE California Insider
PRESTOPUNDITRY: The evidence builds that Schwarzenegger is selling the long term health of California down the river for the benefit of short term gains in his own popularity. In other words -- deep down -- it's politics as usual.
"No more Mr. Nice Guy - please! Gov. Schwarzenegger must stand firm on budget. It's why we elected him.
By JON COUPAL
President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Did you ever see an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where he was hesitant to use whatever weapon was in arm's reach? Neither have I. Gov. Schwarzenegger - locked in the annual dance of the state budget - has two huge weapons at his disposal which he is not using: his mandate from the voters in last year's recall election and a positive rating from California voters that is over 70 percent. Combined, these weapons represent extraordinary political capital. He needs to start spending that capital to force a spending plan reflective of his administration's proposed budget in January - a budget that relied on less borrowing and more cuts. Instead, the governor is giving ground - some say retreating - while his rapid-fire machine gun is still full of ammo. This is especially true regarding his negotiations with public employee unions. It was reported that union members actually cheered last month when they learned the details of governor's deal with union leaders. Defenders of the governor's newly found "kinder and gentler" negotiation style might argue that the budget process is far more complex than the plot line of an action flick. After all, instead of good guys and bad guys, aren't there simply competing interests at the table, all of which are equally legitimate? In a word, no. From a strictly personal perspective, Schwarzenegger should give the unions no quarter. These are the people who fought tooth and nail against both the recall election and his candidacy. They pulled all the stops - money and manpower - in a failed effort to put Cruz Bustamante in the governor's office Nor should the unions be given special treatment from a policy perspective. These are the folks who have demanded - without compromise - that milk testers and billboard inspectors are "public safety" workers entitled to the richest of pensions. They have openly and willfully harmed school children by refusing to permit local school districts to contract for lawn work or transportation services, which would save scarce educational dollars. As in action movies, the budget battle has some fairly well-defined good guys and bad guys. The good guys here are ordinary Californians who pay more in taxes than they take from government. The good guys elected Schwarzenegger. They sang along to his theme song, "We're Not Going to Take It Anymore!" They loved his no-tax pledge. They abhorred "business as usual" in Sacramento. To be crude, they sent Arnold to Sacramento to kick some butt, not get along with the bad guys. The fact that budget negotiations have stalled may actually be a good thing. It might give the governor an opportunity to disengage and check his weaponry. If he goes to war with his adversaries, is there a risk that he will he lose some political capital? Sure. The "net tax receivers," ably represented by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and ultraliberal Senate leader John Burton, will claim he's become just another heartless Republican. But the governor's short - and truthful - answer to such criticism should be, "I was elected governor to follow through on one simple concept: Don't spend more money than you have." That needs to be repeated often and should end the debate, at least as far as voters are concerned. Schwarzenegger also needs to keep something else in mind: Taxpayers care a whole lot less about government slowing down because of a budget stalemate. To most of the voters who elected Arnold, government represents primarily that entity which takes money out of their paychecks. It is for that reason that he should never have made such a big deal about an "on time" budget. But now that that issue is moot, it may work to his advantage. In a gathering during Schwarzenegger's inaugural, former Gov. Pete Wilson urged him to "use his political capital" when needed. If his mentor's advice isn't enough, Arnold ought to consider the example of another former California governor. Shortly after being elected president, Ronald Reagan was confronted with an illegal strike by the nation's air-traffic controllers union. He fired them all."
No more Mr. Nice Guy - please!
MORE California Insider.
And note well, government employees can retire at age 50 with full benefits in most California counties -- including LA and Orange Counties.
Jerry Taylor quoted by Peter Gordon "Games To Be Gamed".
MORE -- Dan Walters, "Schwarzenegger's failure makes new taxes inevitable."
Read the LA Times story here.
Remember -- this is important -- YES ON PROP 64.
Virgina Postrel explains my home town here.
Hugh Hewitt has the full transcript. And here is Hugh's commentary: "Appropriate indeed. And long overdue. After listening to Leahy serially slander numerous judicial nominees, then John Ashcroft last week and the Vice President this week, it was to Dick Cheney's great credit that he let the small man from the small state know what most Americans think of such Uriah Heep-like conduct."
On fiscal matters, Mr. Schwarzenegger considers himself an old-school Republican determined to ferret out waste. No item is too minor to escape his attention. For instance, since Mr. Schwarzenegger took office on Nov. 17, the toilet paper in the Capitol has been switched from two-ply to one-ply, a saving of thousands of dollars over the years. "It's not anymore the two-ply," he said. "Because you know what? We're trimming."
More -- NY Times on Schwarzenegger.
"Q: When you ran for governor, you talked about Gray Davis lacking a vision for California. What would you say is your vision for the state?
A: Well, what I was talking about is that you go out there, and you ask people, what are we really shooting for? What are we trying to accomplish here with the state? What are we all working towards? You know, when you pay your taxes, and all this. I think it's always better when people know what the vision is, rather than saying, "OK, my money is gone, I don't know where it goes to... ." (But)at this point I'm not at a stage of creating a vision for California because I'm still kind of like trying to bring the state up to the level where it ought to be, where just our finances are concerned, and our budget is concerned, and where obstacles that have been created over the last few years for businesses are concerned. All of those things have to be straightened out. There are just a lot of things that have to be straightened out, including the prison system, and all that. Then after we have done this, after we go through this year, then the mission is to go out and to really let the people know, this is where we are trying to go, and this is what we are trying to do now, if it is the mass transit systems, and all that ..
Q: You haven't really had a chance to lay out a long-term plan?
A: Absolutely. The clear thing is that for the first year we have to kind of stop the bleeding and correct some of the problems. And what we are trying, what my goal is, is to eliminate a lot of those problems within the first year, sort of the things that were created over the last few years. And then really - you know, basically, what we are trying to do is, make this giant ship stop the direction it's going. And instead of hitting that iceberg, we want to steer it a little bit to the right, and then set a new direction after it's standing still. It's not standing still yet; it's still moving. But it's much slower, and now we're going to then go and turn it, and send it in a different direction after the stop, and then go in the right direction.
Q: The campaign was so fast and so strange that it's like you never actually were asked to define your ideology, your political ideology. What is your sense, from your experience and your instincts, about the proper role of government to play in society?
A: I think in general I would say that government's role is to assist people, and not to be an obstacle. And, you know, there's a fine line, as there is with everything. I think that if you have a government that feels like they should be involved in every step of your way, like it was under socialism in Austria, or in general under socialism, then you become kind of an obstacle for moving people, inspiring people to move ahead. You maybe take care of a certain segment of society, but in general you don't really support the whole state, or the whole nation, to move forward. So, what I'm trying to do is - and what I always saw was - there is a middle ground between what Austria did and what, for instance, a very conservative government would do. Where they say, you know, limit it down to the minimum of the government.
Q: When you first started becoming involved in politics, and talking about economics, you associated yourself with Milton Friedman.
A: Right.
Q: Do you feel like you've pulled back from that a little bit?
A: No, no. Milton Friedman is still my mentor, and the king. I read everything of Milton Friedman. And you know, you don't have to - when you have someone as an inspiration, that doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that the person does. ... So Milton Friedman laid out a lot of great principles and laid out also where government goes wrong with trying to think that they are the ones that can solve all the problems, because they cannot. And he laid it out, you know, how things have happened before ever government was, how things miraculously came together because of the private industry, because of people's needs, they will come then together. And so, I just think that a lot of times the government makes a mistake by getting involved in things, and sitting around and making up laws that really become, then, an obstacle. It maybe again solves a problem of a certain segment, but then for the mass, it maybe does not. ... The balance is the key thing. For me, everything is about the fine line, finding the fine line, because in everything there is a fine line where you go a little bit to the right, you fall, and it's like being on that balancing beam. You go a little bit to the right, you fall; you go a little bit to the left, you fall. So, finding the fine line - it's the same with negotiating a workers' comp deal, it's negotiating the budget. What is that fine line, and what is reasonable? And so, to me, government can be a great, great asset. But it also can be a huge obstacle if you don't find that fine line ...
Q: What have you learned about yourself during these six months? A: I think in general, when I go through the issues, I'm amazed of how much I am to the center, I would say, with the programs and with where government should be and all this rather than to the right.
Q: So you thought you were more conservative?
A: Well, I did not know, because a lot of issues I never asked myself the question, where do I stand on this and that. But as we go along on that, if I go now and take an inventory, you know, I'm surprised, yeah."
The full interview can be found here.
UPDATE: .. but the AP blames "greenhouse gasses" and "global warming" for modern drought troubles in the West.
And don't miss this: "A bad place to do business? Too much regulation, too little infrastructure".
The obligation of curvee royale in France -- forced labor owed to the state for the repair of roads -- "was one of the most potent causes of the [French] Revolution". For much of the 1800s the curvee royale was three day. Most of us in California will be working our modern curvee royale for 80 days and more.
Contemplate this:
According to the Tax Foundation, if current laws are unchanged, the national Tax Freedom Day will rise an additional 17 days -- from April 11 in 2004 to April 29 by the year 2014.
In Los Angeles your state and local taxes would be $7,705 on a family income of $75,000. In Las Vegas, where thousands of Southern Californians have moved, your state and local taxes would be $3,928.
The cost of doing business is 32 percent higher in California than in neighboring states, he said. That includes soaring workers-compensation costs, high energy costs and expensive environmental regulation. Companies often increase productivity by buying better equipment and cutting workers, he said. Those jobs than move to cheaper states. Nevada, together with Texas and other neighboring states, have lower wages, lower energy costs and lower taxes, Stewart said.
"It's pretty much a no-brainer where you are going to move production," he said.
Source: OC Register -- "Nabisco closure plants seeds of concern".
California. A decades worth of evidence that California Democrats are not giving California voters the goverment they want. More proof that George Will and Glenn Reynolds are flat wrong about the logic of representative goverment -- a system dominated today by ideological whack jobs and payoffs to favored pigs at the trough of cash and privilege.
California. Big, big win for Arnold Schwarzenegger. California votes once again for fantasy land and head in the sand, delaying the inevitable day when the state comes face to face with the overwhelming fiscal reality of massive overspending. This may be good politics for Schwarzenegger, but there is no way to pretend that this is good money management for future generations of Californians.
California Strike. The SoCal grocery strike is over. Tens of thousands currently working in the stores will now lose their jobs. Unbelievable as this may sound, strikers were never allow a look at contract specifics by their union bosses -- and in fact it became clear over time that striking workers had agreed to strike based on completely false information from the people controlling the union.
The whole thing will likely be recorded as a complete waste of the time and money of everyone concerned. Happily, strikers were for the most part very well behaved. Only once did my wife witness a striker smashing a shopper over the head with a sign, while other strikers surrounded and verbally abused the victim. Don't know what the lady said or did to deserve that, but this was an isolated event, as far as I'm aware.
California Senate Race. "Chaos theory suggests that the beating of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can set in motion effects that include, in time, a tornado in Topeka. Imagine a butterfly effect from Californians' votes on Tuesday .. Suppose Republican voters [in California], half of whom a recent poll showed to be undecided, create the year's most mesmerizing Senate race by nominating Rosario Marin. She is the 45-year-old former U.S. treasurer and mayor of Huntington Park, a 95 percent Latino town of 60,000 in southeast Los Angeles County, where Democrats have a 5-to-1 registration advantage.
Today, when biography serves as political philosophy, Marin's suits this nation within the nation. At 14 she emigrated from Mexico with her parents, a janitor and a seamstress, speaking no English. She graduated near the top of her high school class, worked her way through college ..
Bill Simon, Davis's Republican gubernatorial opponent in 2002, lost by 5 percentage points, getting the votes of just 24 percent of Latinos and 37 percent of women. With 40 percent of Latinos and 2 percent more women, he would have won. Boxer's 1998 opponent won just 23 percent of Latinos. In last October's gubernatorial vote, 40 percent of the Latino vote went for Republicans ..
Marin campaigning at Bush's side this autumn -- in 2000, he lost California by 1.3 million votes, losing by 1.5 million among women and winning just 22 percent of Latinos -- would give him huge help with both Latino and women voters.
At Bush's other side will be another immigrant, Schwarzenegger .. ". more GEORGE WILL.
UPDATE: Don't miss Xrlq's investigation of Marin's Kerry-like stand on Bush's open borders plan.
California. Nearly 60% of California's business leaders say it is official company policy -- all job growth will be direct out of California.
California. Tom McClintock explains why massive state borrowing won't correct California's overspending problem.
LA TIMES POLL. Kerry leads Edwards 2-1, Prop 56 is going down in flames, 60% oppose Bush on immigration, Schwarzenegger will knock down both pins, and Fonda Kerry leads Bush by 13 in California. MORE LA Times Poll. Here are the PDF details. Poll nugget -- Schwarzenegger's massive borrowing bond will pass due to strong GOP backing of the Governator.
Gay Marriage. Gov. Schwarzenegger orders AG Bill Lockyer to take legal action against San Francisco. Quotable:
"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee. As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State."
Gay Marriage. The author of California's domestic partner law will wed same-sex bride in San Francisco.
California. Were adding something like 600,000 bodies to the state every year. That's more than six Mission Viejos every 12 months.
Gay Marriage. Violate state marriage laws and the legal authorities will do nothing other than give you another month to continue doing it. Simply air the idea that ignoring the guns laws would be no different that ignoring the marriage laws and the authorities will send cops to your door.
Gay Marriage. Will California AG Bill Lockyer enforce the law? He says he will -- but at the same time he publicly opposes the law. Lockyer in the past has eventually done the legal thing -- when immense pressure forced him to back down from earlier decisions to violate the law. That's what happened during the recall. Lockyer has once again chosen to enforce the law after being slammed up against the wall -- this time by a City of San Francisco lawsuit against the state. We'll see what happens ..
California GOP. "The [GOP] raised $18 million in 2003, compared with $6 million in the entire 2000 presidential cycle, and registered some 250,000 new voters, of whom 15% were Democrats switching parties .. ". MORE on Schwarzenegger & the California GOP.
RIP. The LA Times' Frank del Olmo is dead. Best that I bite my tongue.
UPDATE: A journalist on del Olmo.
California & Immigration. Tyler Cowen is celebrating the fact that even foreign immigrants find California a less appealing place to live. Quotable:
For the first time in thirty years, immigrants are finding California a less appealing place to settle. The 2000 census measures 24.8 percent of all new arrivals going to California, down from 37.6 percent in the 1990 tally ..
Read the whole thing for Cowen's analysis.
California Senate Race. Radio talk jock Hugh Hewitt has endorsed Bill Jones for U.S. Senate in the California Republican primary. Hewitt touts Jones for his political maturity -- he's less likely to slip up against Boxer during the campaign. Not a ringing endorsement, but it's never a good idea to bet against Hewitt when it comes to California Republican politics.
Gay Marriage. The judge who is permitting gay marriage to continue in San Franscisco for another month is gay.
Boot Boxer. Here is the radio spot Rosario Marin is running on talk radio in Southern California. She's up against Bill Jones and some others in the Republican primary which will decide who takes on Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate race. Hey, I managed to write this without saying one hideous thing about Barbara Boxer.
Weintraub -- "California's high schools are still churning out college-bound graduates who can barely read, write and do math." He links to this SacBee story. Depressing.
Former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin has hit the airwaves in Southern California with radio spots touting herself as the Republican best able to bounce Barbara Boxer from the U.S. Senate. You can visit her web site here. Watch her Senate candidacy announcement here. Her radio spots are actually quite effective.
"A human wave is breaking over California, flooding freeways and schools, bloating housing costs, disrupting power and water supplies. Ignoring it hasn't worked." -- The LA Times. Quotable:
During the last half of the last century � an epoch encompassing most of the baby boom and, a generation later, all of the boom's echo � the state's population grew by more than 24 million. The next 24 million � more than the population of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska combined � will arrive more quickly, inflating the total to nearly 60 million within 36 years .. California's population, currently at 36 million, likely will double within the lifetime of today's schoolchildren ..No other state has so many residents (Texas ranks second, but with almost 40% fewer people), and no other state comes close to matching California's annual net population increase. In Los Angeles County and five surrounding counties�Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial�the population now stands at more than 17 million. That's nearly 6% of the U.S. population, one in every 17 Americans, all within a four-hour drive�if you can find four hours when the traffic isn't bad. At least 20% already live in crowded housing, and poverty levels have increased steadily for three decades. Yet during the next 25 years the region is projected to grow by 6 million ...
Demographic studies after the 2000 census revealed that from 1990 to 2000, immigrants and their children accounted not for just some, or even most, of California's growth. They accounted for virtually all of it. Of the increase of 4.2 million people during those 10 years, the net gain generated by the native population was just 90,000, fewer than attend each year's Rose Bowl game.
Immigrants .. inflate the population not just by coming to California but by having children once they're here. While the combined birthrate for California's U.S. citizens and immigrants who are not Latino has dropped to replacement level, the birthrate for Latino immigrants from Mexico and Central America averages more than three children per mother ..
the earth's population doubled to 5 billion in a mere 37 years (1950 to 1987) and will more than double again in this century, many countries, particularly in Europe, now have low fertility rates, relatively low immigration levels and are losing population. In sharp contrast, the U.S., at more than 292 million the world's third-most populous country behind behemoths China and India, will soon glide past 300 million en route to 400 million before mid-century. In this respect, America stands alone in the developed world. United Nations projections show just eight countries accounting for half of the planet's population increase between now and 2050. Seven of them come as no surprise: China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The other country is the United States, largely because of its generous immigration policies ..
Overshadowed by the state's long-term fiscal quagmire is the less publicized neglect of aging infrastructure that wasn't designed to serve current population levels, let alone a population projected to be nearly two-thirds larger within 36 years .. To handle the anticipated yearly increase of 600,000 new residents�equal to three new cities the size of Glendale�the state must engineer and build billions of dollars of new infrastructure and facilities ..
the state also has an evolving crisis of shifting demographics as immigration expands the underclass, which pays a lesser share of the tax burden. The Southern California Assn. of Governments' 2003 State of the Region Report found that the region's position "is slipping in nearly every performance category related to socio-economic well-being, including income and educational attainment. Among 17 major metropolitan areas nationwide, the region ranks 16th or worse in ... attainment of high school degrees, per capita income, persons in poverty, and children in poverty."
Note well. This article is NOT by an LA Times staff member, and was NOT published in the news pages of the LA Times. Here's a tip. Don't be surprised if someone gets fired at the LA Times Magazine.
(hat tip to John and Ken).
It's another Carnival of Capitalists. Worth highlighting, "I'm a Liberal, Not An Idiot Unlike Steve Lopez, an L.A. Times columnist with a "progressive" tax plan that would drive down tax revenues and make The State of California's revenue base more unstable all at the same time."
A new sheriff is in town -- and he's aiming to reform California's corrupt penal system. Another reason we should be happy we have a new Governor.
Daniel Weintraub on Danial Weintraub -- journalist-blogger. Quotable:
I am either a pioneer working on the cutting edge of journalism or a fool wasting my time in chit-chat with a tiny and ultimately insignificant number of readers ..
(via Calblog.)
GEORGE WILL does a 180� on Schwarzenegger and California. Quotable:
Favored by sportsmen around the world, [Buck Knives] have been made in San Diego since Hoyt Buck arrived there in 1947. By next year they will be made in Idaho, where the firm's immediate savings will include $500,000 in workers' compensation costs and a 60 percent decrease in utility bills.The owner of five Hungry Howie's Pizza franchises near Fresno scrapped plans to add five more, with up to 70 new jobs, when energy costs tripled and workers' compensation quadrupled. Multiply the businesses that do not come to, stay or expand in California and you have ... Argentina, which in 1900 had a per capita income as high as Canada's. Or sub-Saharan Africa, which In 1950 had per capita income as high as Southeast Asia's. Government -- especially bad government -- matters. In the late 1990s it helped drive roughly 200,000 Californians from the state each year.
[Finance Director Donna] Arduin's mastery of budget mechanics, which was known, in the service of Arnold Schwarzenegger's political subtlety, which is surprising, is already producing successes. Her task is to clarify the future costs of past decisions. His task is to revise some of those decisions.
Here testosterone enters the equation. Six months ago the question was: Could an intergalactically famous Hollywood hero heal California's self-inflicted wounds? Today the question is: Can only such a person do the job? On a Schwarzeneggerean scale, fame -- ``the fever of renown,'' Samuel Johnson called it -- might today be a political asset necessary for governing a state this big and broken.
Fame can help him strike separate deals with large interest groups, so he will not confront a vast unified opposition. The California Teachers Association has agreed to only modest cuts in education spending. But Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee notes that this will help the governor isolate unions representing non-teaching school employees. Those unions oppose revisions of a law that impedes outsourcing non-teaching services to private contractors.
Schwarzenegger's fame can generate public support sufficient to pressure state legislators. Because of gerrymandering by both parties to protect incumbents, most legislators have seats so safe they rarely feel threatened. And with the coin of fame Schwarzenegger can buy public mobilization to enact through referenda those reforms that the Legislature spurns.
It is irrational but actual: A movie action hero as governor may be immune to charges of being soft on criminals. Therefore he can contemplate reducing the prison population through alternative handling of parole violators. Prison guards, a powerful interest group, can contemplate revising their lucrative contracts or losing jobs.
The state began expanding in-home care for the elderly in the 1950s, when the polio vaccine threatened unemployment for caregivers for polio victims. Now the $1.4 billion program is six times larger than a decade ago. Schwarzenegger proposes to stop paying family members to care for their own relatives.
Every cost-cutting idea is met with a chorus of abuse, and the opposition's idee fixe -- taxing ``the rich.'' What is unfolding is a drama worthy of Schwarzenegger's talents, which were wasted on make-believe dramas.
I like Bill Jones for U.S. Senate also. Here's the Jones for California web site. I don't think I've ever heard a politician who talks so much like a normal grown-up human being, rather than a tightly wound "I want to help others" freak doing everything necessary to be the "adult" equivalent of junior class President.
Schwarzenegger saves $98,000 and 12.2 metric tons of paper before any political hack even has a peak at his new state budget.
"Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government. I don�t want to move the boxes around. I want to blow them up."
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger in his State of the State Speech.
California Insider has top-notch instant analysis.
I've known folks with economics degrees from "top" universities who are not far from being illiterates in the subject of economics -- their economics degree gave them lots of practice in some now forgotten 3rd rate math equations and very little else. What a shame. Thomas Sowell has more on the nearly useless economics education most college students are getting today:
.. those who are uninformed -- or, worse yet misinformed -- when it comes to economics include the intelligentsia, even when they have Ph.D.s in other fields.Economics as a profession has some responsibility for this widespread lack of understanding. Highly sophisticated economic analysis can be found in courses on campuses where a majority of the students have no real understanding of something as elementary as supply and demand.
Even students taking introductory economics as their one and only course in the subject may get little that they can take with them out into the world as citizens and voters. Introductory economics is too often taught as if the students in it were all potential economists who had to be introduced to the standard graphs, equations and jargon that they will need in higher level courses or in the profession.
With all the time that is devoted to equipping these students with tools that they will never use again, some may leave an introductory economics course with little more understanding of real world economic issues than they would have had if they had never taken the course.
People who took economics years ago often write to me to say that they learned more from reading my book "Basic Economics" than they ever learned from taking a course -- or courses -- in the subject when they were students. Yet there is nothing in this book that any economist could not have told them.
The problem is that there are no real incentives for academic economists to write a book that simply explains economic issues in plain English and without the usual paraphernalia of the profession. The last book that did so was written by a non-academic economist half a century ago: "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, who wrote a popular column for a living.
It was -- and is -- a fine book. The fact that it is still in print after 50 years, despite being small and outdated, shows not only its merits but also how little the other economists have written that can compete with it.
Incentives have a lot to do with this lack of competition. It will certainly not do an academic economist's career any good to write a book saying what every other economist already knows. Your colleagues might even wonder what was wrong with you.
Moreover, it is hard to throw off the habits of a lifetime and write a book on economics without a single graph, equation, or use of familiar jargon. I know. At one time, I doubted that it could be done.
(Note: This is part two of three. Part one is here. Part two is here)
Nevertheless, from time to time, as some ridiculous economic idea was proclaimed in the media or in politics, I would sit down and write something to explain what was wrong with that way of thinking. Over the years these fragmentary writings accumulated in my computer until -- after about a decade -- I realized that there was enough material to organize into a book.
That book became Basic Economics. Its second edition has just been published and it has also been translated into Japanese, Korean, and Polish, and is currently being translated into Swedish, so apparently people find it worth reading. Maybe there will be some more informed voters in the future.
A battle for the soul of the Republican Party is brewing over the issue of government spending. At the national level, Republicans have just pushed through the biggest government entitlement program in 40 years. In California, however, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to take the offensive against government spending. Sometime soon, Republicans need to choose between these two conflicting visions and define their beliefs about the size of government.Republicans in Washington have declared their views by spending as much as necessary to win the next election. To take away a campaign issue from Democrats, Republicans enacted a nearly half-trillion-dollar Medicare drug-benefit program. Overall, the new program, although it has a couple of good aspects, doesn't make sense for health care, let alone for fiscal policy.
It's true that 24 percent of seniors have no prescription drug coverage and 5 percent have annual out-of-pocket prescription costs of more than $4,000. However, the just-enacted legislation doesn't target these subgroups, instead giving a universal government-subsidized drug benefit to every senior in the country.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., one of the few GOP lawmakers to vote against the bill, observed, "While the need for some type of benefit is real, the need for a universal benefit is not." The Republican leadership, though, wanted to pass the bill at any cost.
Putting profligacy and politics above principle has been a disturbing trend under Republican rule in Washington, D.C. With Republicans controlling the legislative and executive branches, the federal budget has grown by 27 percent the past two years. "We Republicans seem to have forgotten who we are and why voters sent us here," Pence laments.
One Republican who so far hasn't forgotten why voters supported him is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Upon assuming the California governorship, Schwarzenegger barnstormed the state to rally public opinion for his plan to address the state's massive budget deficit. The new Republican governor labeled liberal legislators "overspending addicts" and, in great Hollywood style, tore up a huge credit-card prop declaring that "we want to take away the state's credit card from the politicians, and cut it in half, and throw it in the garbage can so they can never do that again."
Schwarzenegger initially proposed a tough cap that would have cut spending by 16 percent from the current expenditure level and adjusted future spending based on population and per-capita income growth. Although Schwarzenegger dropped the cap idea because of opposition from the Democratic majority in the Legislature, he did negotiate a deal to require that state spending not exceed state revenue and that there be no more borrowing in the future.
Perhaps more significant is Schwarzenegger's willingness to take on entrenched special interests. He shocked the education establishment by telling CNN that he's considering suspending Proposition 98, which guarantees education a big chunk of the budget. He proposes reductions in sacred-cow social programs and transportation projects. He also wants to cut university outreach programs that have been criticized as dressed up race-based preference programs.
Regardless of whether his proposals are eventually approved, Schwarzenegger is offering the Republican Party an alternative fiscal vision. For fiscally conservative Republicans, who make up the vast majority of the party, the prescription for long-term success may lie in Sacramento, not Washington.
-- Lance Izumi in the OC Register.
Theives with badges. California Insider on some of the government union workers who begin collecting pensions at the age of 50 at no less than 90% pay. Small wonder that we are now bankrupt.
LA County Sheriff Lee Baca was among those on hand Thursday to fete Gov. Schwarzenegger for unilaterally sending money to cities and counties to avert law enforcement layoffs threatened by the governor's recent rollback of the car tax. Coincidentally, an audit released yesterday of Baca's department showed that payroll costs increased by one-third and retirement costs tripled in the five-year period ending in 2002. The story is here, in the Daily News. An excerpt:The audit, by Torrance-based Thompson, Cobb, Bazilo & Associates, found expenditures increased by $473 million during that period, from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion, driven mainly by a 46 percent increase in salary and employee benefits, from $913 million to $1.3 billion.
The audit found retirement benefits jumped from $46 million to $143 million, employee benefits rose 184 percent, from $8 million to $22 million, overtime spiked 39 percent, from $67 million to $94 million and workers' compensation costs rose 82 percent, from $46 million to $84 million.
In 1996-97, the average retirement benefit cost was $3,559 per employee. That had jumped to $9,631 by 2001-02. Likewise, in 1996-97, an average of $13,346 was paid per workers' compensation claim. That soared to $21,260 per claim in 2001-02.
Schwarzenegger's budget deal is getting two thumbs down from National Review Online which labels his performance a BAD start.
California Insider takes a pointed look at the Schwarzenegger - legislature "compromise" budget fix. Quotable?
The reserve doesn't really change much; it simply allows the state to keep spending beyond what ongoing revenues will support for a bit longer before everything comes crashing down.
Weintraub on the budget "deal":
Giving away the store. The more times I read the bill, the more I�m left scratching my head at how little Gov. Schwarzenegger seems to have extracted from Democrats in exchange for a huge concession: his decision to drop any plans for writing a spending cap into the state constitution. Once he dropped that demand, he should have been able to run the table on the rest of the negotiations to establish a real balanced budget requirement, a bullet-proof reserve for economic downturns and a solid process for making mid-year corrections to stop a deficit from growing out of control. These are all sensible, good-government ideas to which the Democrats should not have even objected. But Schwarzenegger seems to have let them pick away at the details until they reached the point that they were barely more than symbolic gestures. As several senators said Friday, this measure probably doesn�t do any harm. But it doesn�t do a whole lot of good, either.
Check out Weintraub's examples explaining why it doesn't do much good.
Whatever happened to a spending limit?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised he would clean house in the state government, but Thursday he got his clock cleaned on the budget deal he worked out with Democratic leaders in the Legislature. There are two major parts to the deal .. The second part would .. "become operative," in the preliminary wording of the constitutional amendment being considered, only if the bond is passed by voters. This part mandates a balanced budget: "This measure would prohibit the Legislature from sending to the governor for consideration, and the governor from signing into law, a budget bill for the 2004-05 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, that ... exceeds the estimate of General Fund revenues ... for that fiscal year."But this does not restrain spending by even $1. "The litmus test is this," Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine and a member of the Assembly budget committee, told us: "Had this been in effect in 1998, would this have prevented [Gov. Gray] Davis and his cronies from doing what they did? No." In those years, temporary increases in revenue from the dot-com boom led to a wild spending spree that could not be sustained during the bust years ...
"It's really a bunch of nothing," Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley, told us. "There's no limit on spending. I don't see how this does anything as a practical matter to produce a balanced budget."
This version of a balanced budget allows too much latitude for increased spending in good years and does not strike at the core of the state's budget problems. As Mr. Campbell pointed out, the talk for several months was that a bond measure would be advanced only if it was tied to a hard spending limit to make sure a $38 billion budget deficit fiasco doesn't occur again.
All eyes are on Gov. Schwarzenegger in this regard: Will he cut deals that start to address the core problems, or deals that only swipe at the margins? This deal, as proposed, is one that brushes the margins.
The balanced budget amendment also includes a "Budget Stabilization Account" beginning in 2006, a sort of reserve fund, with half of the fund yearly going toward retiring the debt from this measure. But the account could be raided with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature (or even just a majority, according to one version of the legislation being advanced late yesterday). Sen. McClintock pointed out that current law already requires a "prudent" budget reserve that can be used with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. So the new account isn't substantially different from the old reserve, and even could be weaker.
Basically, this isn't a spending limitation or even much of a balanced-budget requirement, but a way to get the $15 billion bond on the ballot. It imposes no real discipline on the Legislature .. It also would set a bad example by showing that the Legislature can float deficit bonds at will, with no spending limit in place.
It looks like Schwarzenegger got rolled.
Whalen on Schwarzenegger vs. the Democrats. Quotable:
For those of you keeping score, here's where Schwarzenegger stands after three weeks on the job. On Day One, he signed an executive order overturning the tripling of the state's car tax. On Day 17, he signed a bill repealing the measure granting drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. By the close of business, on Day 19, he may have his budget fix and spending cap. Schwarzenegger promised to deliver those three items in his first 100 days as governor. He's about to pull it off in one-fifth the time.
Hugh Hewitt has archives! And he's just been named official sommelier of California by governor Schwarzenegger. Unbelievable! Hewitt has some interesting things to say about Schwarzenegger, the Demo candidates, and the power of conservative radio:
The [LA] Times seems bitter that Arnold is using radio to communicate, writing that the "friendly hosts have become essential communication arms of [Arnold's] government.". Slowly it is dawning on some of the state's elites that the radio world presents an alternative means of communicating with millions of Golden State voters. The newspapers are the dinosaurs; the radio shows have become fast paced and mobile. The newspapers pile up unread. The radio shows provide instant impact with large audiences.Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic wannabees should take note of Arnold's understanding: Radio shows combine large audiences of potential voters with an opportunity to communicate directly with them. The Dems cower from the prospect of mixing it up with the center-right hosts, but there is only gain to be had if they know what they are doing. (Dean probably has to stay away from radio given his tendency to fly off the handle. Radio doesn't help the unstable.)
Donna Arduin -- Schwarzenegger's director of Finance -- explains how the governor plans to make California solvent again.
How awful are the human beings who run the California legislature? Well, this awful. The more I learn of these folks, the more I come to conclude that some of these folks are just flat out hideous people. And no wonder that 80% of Californians simply don't like them, a truly astounding negative opinion rating for a central institution of society.
As governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has cut taxs, called the legislature back into session, and blocked all pending state regulations. Not bad for a days work.
The LA Times staked its reputation on the claim that no governor could repeal the 300 percent increase in the car tax -- but in the first hours of his governorship, Arnold Schwarzenegger did just that, adding yet another pile of shreds to what little is left of the journalistic reputation of the Times.
The Bear Flag League rallies behind Calblog's battle with a sleazy company and its cretin attorneys.
Broadband internet connection -- $45 month
Web server -- $25 month
MovableType software -- free
Membership in the California Bear Flag League -- free
Linkage from CalBlog, Instapundit, The Washington Post, the California Insider, Rough&Tumble, The LA Times, and throughout the blogosphere -- free
Blogging the removing a sitting governor from office -- priceless
And the winner is ... California declares Arnold Schwarzenegger winner of the recall election. Quotable -- "The number of votes cast Oct. 7 exceeded by 1.6 million the number of people who voted in the November 2002 general election." Schwarzenegger becomes governor of California this Monday.
A visit to Disney Hall in Los Angeles -- "one of the most agreeable modern concert halls I have been in".
The circulation of the LA Times is down a little over 1% -- and that is thru Sept. 30 2003, just days before the Times lost another 9-10 thousand readers outraged by the behavior of the Times during the final days of the recall election. In the last 7 months the Times has lost something in the neighborhood of 20,000 subscribers. When a paper sucks, the people notice. And the truly good things about the Times simply can't overcome the large sucky parts. At some point the folks in Chicago are going to notice as well.
Now available -- California Bear Flag League stuff. The League store was set up for Bear Flaggers and Bear Flag fans by fellow Leaguer SoCalLawBlog. Proceeds will be be used by the Bear Flag League for as yet undetermined ends -- good and legal ones, I trust. Maybe a party or some such for Bear Flaggers and friends. Who knows? Maybe we'll use it for one big tip to the blogfather. The League is one part benevolent monarchy and one part chaotic democracy, and this is something we'll likely vote on.
Some folks in California need to read this book, before the next season of fires. It wouldn't hurt if some folks in Washington, D.C. read a chapter or two as well. The book is written by this man.
Here is what he's about:
A monster fire in Arizona [July 2002] is devouring trees and houses with unprecedented ferocity. It has already consumed 450,000 acres of forest and forced 30,000 people to evacuate their homes. This is just one of 17 big fires scorching the West. So far, they have burned nearly twice as many acres as were consumed at this point in the record fire year of 2000. Since 1990, wildfires charred over 40 million acres, destroyed more than 4000 homes, and cost $5 billion to fight. These tragic losses are growing worse each year because of a misguided belief of many environmentalists that all fires are good and management is bad.On the contrary, most of today's fires are bad and management is the only way to stop them. Fires now look like battlefields when they burn. When a fire finally stops, it leaves a desolate landscape scared by erosion and pitted with craters that formed where tree roots burned. The blackened corpses of animals and fallen trees litter the ground and standing dead trees form a ghostly skeleton of the former forest. This is not natural.
Historically, fire was part of America's forests, but not the monster fires of today. Hot fires burned only a few types of forest, and then only infrequently. Most forests burned often and gently. The flames were low in a gentle fire, creeping through grass and pine needles, leaving most large trees unharmed, and only briefly flaring up in scattered log piles, brush, or thickets. These fires kept historic forests open, patchy, diverse, and safe from monster fires.
What went so terribly wrong? Everyone knows the simple answer, too much fuel. More than a century ago, we began protecting forests from fire. We did not know that lightning fires kept them thin. More recently, we adopted an anti-management philosophy that protects forests from people. This ignores 12,000 years of history in which Native Americans doubled the number of fires by using them as a tool to keep forests open and productive.
Now logs and branches clutter the ground and trees grow so thick that it is difficult to walk through many forests. It is not surprising that the gentle fires of the past have become the destructive monsters of the present.
Fuel is part of the problem, but there is more to the story of what went wrong. Unlike the image of historic forests promoted by anti-management advocates, which depicts old trees spread like a blanket over the landscape, a historic forest was patchy. It looked more like a quilt than a blanket. Each patch consisted of a group of trees of about the same age, some young patches, some old patches, or meadows depending on how many years passed since fire created a new opening where they could grow.
The variety of patches in historic forests helped to contain hot fires. Most patches of young trees, and old trees with little underneath did not burn well and served as firebreaks. Still, chance led to fires skipping some patches. So, fuel built up and the next fire burned a few of them while doing little harm to the rest of the forest. Thus, most historic forests developed an ingenious pattern of little firebreaks that kept them immune from monster fires.
Today, the patchiness of our forests is gone, so they have lost their immunity to monster fires. Fires now spread across vast areas because we let all patches grow thick, and there are few younger and open patches left to slow the flames. That is what is happening throughout the West.
This is even more serious because monster fires create even bigger monsters. Huge blocks of seedlings that grow on burned areas become older and thicker at the same time. When it burns again, fire spreads farther and creates an even bigger block of fuel for the next fire. This cycle of monster fires has begun. Today, the average fire is nearly double the size it was in the last two decades and it may double again.
What should we do? We can thin little trees and use prescribed burns to reduce fuels, but that is not enough. We must use history as a guide and restore the natural immunity of our forests to monster fires. That means cutting whatever trees are necessary, big or small, to recreate the patchiness and diversity of historic forests that kept fires gentle and helpful.
It is easy to do. Foresters have the knowledge to restore our forests. They can do it using logging, thinning, and prescribed burning. Management has the added advantage of creating jobs, producing forest products, and generating revenue to cover the cost. If we act now we can stop the monster fires while also creating forests that rival the beauty and sustainability of historic forests.
The debate over "Healthy Forests" will be a good test to see if the environmental lobby can overcome its more extreme members and embrace common-sense reforms.
-- from John Fund's Political Diary.
Patterico reports from the new Disney Hall in Los Angeles. What did he think? We'll, lets just say he'll be back.
.. and action!. Quotable: "I think the Legislature needs to understand that this is a governor who has the unique ability to go over our heads and talk directly to the voters" -- State Senator Jim Brulte.
U.S. Congressmen introduce legislation to endagainst those who aren't leftist or Democrats on America's college campuses.
Jill Stewart takes on John Carroll and the LA Times:
How the Los Angeles Times Really Decided to Publish its Accounts of Women Who Said They Were Groped(Oct 14, 2003)
~ By Jill Stewart
Now that the California gubernatorial recall election is over, one debate is still raging--the question of how much bias the Los Angeles Times allowed into its coverage and polls. I am offering three items below, not my normal "Capitol Punishment" column, exploring this issue.The first item is my response to John Carroll, executive editor of the Los Angeles Times. On Sunday, Oct. 12, Carroll published a bylined justification for his decisions to run eleventh-hour bombshells that alleged Arnold Schwarzenegger had groped women. Carroll used his Opinion section to attack me, Los Angeles Weekly political commentator Bill Bradley, and other commentators who criticized the way the Times has handled itself--but Carroll did so without actually naming any of us.
The second item is an illuminating interview I conducted last week with a longtime, well-respected Timesian who was involved in the Schwarzenegger probe. This source contacted me after hearing me discuss the Times bias against Schwarzenegger, and its longtime protection of Davis, on a cable network. My description of Times bias, this inside source says, "is exactly how it's been, except it's been three times as bad."
The third item is commentary on this controversy which I sought from Dr. Paul Fick, author of the best selling "The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton." Fick is an expert on why powerful people behave the way they do. He comments on Schwarzenegger's possible mindset and the motives of Carroll and the Los Angeles Times.
Item One:
My Response to Times Executive Editor John CarrollCarroll's attack on me was partly over my contention that the story could have been published two weeks beforehand, which I was told by employees at the Times who called me out of frustration over how the story was handled. Carroll denies this and says the story was published as soon as it was done.
However, my sources insist that Carroll made conscious decisions that delayed the story---decisions which a sophisticated journalist such as Carroll would realize could easily create publication delays that would make it too late for the Schwarzenegger camp to have time to credibly respond.
According to two of my sources, the huge team of reporters that Carroll eventually tapped to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger had plenty of examples to publish their story when they got a tip, late in the game, about a woman who was allegedly groped.
My sources say the woman repeatedly refused to talk to the Times. A lead reporter on the Arnold swat team was assigned to cajole and call the woman over many days. The story could easily have run without this anonymous tale, which resembled the stories of other women. But Carroll, obsessed with piling on more stories even as the clock ran out, pushed onward. The reporter repeatedly pressured the woman for her story. This woman finally relented in order to make the journalist stop harassing her, and her story was added to the pile.
Despite the obvious need to get the sex harassment story in the paper well before the election so that it would not act as a last-minute and unfair smear, another source says that Carroll then made a very conscious decision to hold back the article while a story about Schwarzenegger's steroid use was edited (see interview below). The steroids investigative piece was a disappointment to editors, this source says, because it did not portray Schwarzenegger in nearly the horrific light that they had hoped.
The editor handling both pieces, Joel Sappell, put aside his work on the sex harassment story to edit the steroids article. It ran on the Monday eight days before the election. Only when that piece was edited could Sappell turn his full attention to editing the sex harassment story, which ran the Thursday before the election. Carroll's decision to push the steroids story ahead of the groping story seriously delayed publishing of the bombshell, this source says.
Carroll claims that the groping story was published as soon as it was done. In fact, in journalism, a story is done when the boss says turn it in. Carroll himself saw to it that the story was strung out until the last. That is why some staffers continue to insist to me that the story was sufficiently nailed and should have run two weeks beforehand.
Carroll also takes issue with my claims that the paper has had chances over the years to dig up glaring dirt on Davis' violent fits and attacks upon his staff. I claim that the Times digs just so deep before backing off and abandoning these touchy stories.
First, Carroll made a phony claim on Sunday so he could knock it down, writing, "it was written that the paper failed to follow up on reports that Davis had mistreated women in his office." Hey, John Carroll, I wrote precisely the opposite. I clearly wrote, in a special column for the Daily News of Los Angeles, Long Beach Press-Telegram and Ventura County Reporter, that the Times did follow-up on the alleged mistreatment, and that I crossed paths with their reporters while I too investigated the story. But the Times never published any articles---while I did publish my findings about Davis' secret personality, in New Times Los Angeles in 1997 and 1998.
Here's the full, phony, Carroll paragraph: "It was written that the paper failed to follow up on reports that Davis had mistreated women in his office. Fact: Virginia Ellis, a recent Pulitzer Prize finalist, and other Times reporters investigated this twice. Their finding both times: The discernible facts didn't support a story."
Besides his gross inaccuracy, check out that last sentence about discernible facts. It is meaningless doubletalk. A California state bureaucrat might as well have written it.
Carroll was not employed by the Times back then. Maybe this is why he fails to mention the reason one of the reporters gave me, when I called in the late 1990s to find out why the story on Davis' bizarre dual personality never ran. The reporter told me Times editors dropped further pursuit of Davis' office violence because the Times editors were opposed to attacking major political figures using anonymous sources. Obviously, things have changed. At least for one side of the political aisle.
Moreover, Carroll focuses only on attacks by Davis reported in New Times Los Angeles in the late 1990s. Why didn't the Times do a Schwarzenegger-style probe of earlier Davis bad behavior and much more recent Davis bad behavior? For example: how about the widely rumored violent fit Davis threw on election night in November, 2002 at the Century Plaza Hotel, which got a lot of airtime in the Bay Area this year when a radio talk show in San Francisco went public with it?
As a guest on the Oct. 12 edition of CNN's "Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz," I pointed out that the Times never published a word on that reported Davis meltdown. A Times editor based in Washington, D.C. insisted the Los Angeles office checked out the story---that Gray Davis destroyed a TV set---and found nothing. Naturally, they'll forgive me at the Times for doubting that they did a Schwarzenegger-level scouring. But maybe the discernible facts didn't support a story.
More on this is discussed in the interview, in Item Two, below.
In addition to Carroll's criticism of me, Carroll misreported what Bill Bradley's stunning story said last week in the LA Weekly. Bradley told me he has left messages for Carroll, pointing out the factual error Carroll made. Bradley deserves a published correction in the Times.
Bradley dropped a real bombshell last week when he reported in the Weekly that somebody at the Times, who was tied in closely to the paper's Arnold hit team, leaked key details of the Schwarzenegger groping piece to Democratic Party insiders before the Times published its story. (Bradley did not report that somebody at the Times kept the Democrats "apprised of the newspaper's probe, step by step," as Carroll erroneously wrote on Sunday.)
A leak about the story's contents from the Times to the Democrats might explain why Democratic operatives seemed able to mount an incredibly fast and coordinated attack on Schwarzenegger the moment the story appeared.
Leaking by a journalist to help a political campaign would be a firing offense at most newspapers. Yet Carroll appears to be utterly dismissive of Bradley's story. Bill Bradley and I both specialize in writing about the Sacramento power elite, but we have almost never seen eye-to-eye on politics or politicians. We do not socialize, and at times our relations have been poor. However, both of us can clearly see that something went wrong at the Los Angeles Times.
Item Two:
A View Inside the 'Get Arnold' NewsroomThe overriding issue is the out-the-gate bias with which the paper conducted its coverage. The Times ultimately created a huge---wait until you hear how huge---team dedicated to digging dirt, of any kind, from any decade, on rumored and reported personal behavior by Schwarzenegger. Yet while the newspaper poured massive resources into this effort, (is it too crazy to suggest a pricetag of $100,000?) it did not create a similar team, or even seriously discuss a team, to dig dirt on rumored and reported personal behavior by Davis. (See my Oct. 4 column at www.jillstewart.net.)
It's fine that John Carroll is pushing the Times local staff toward investigative reporting. However, Carroll's own behavior, as described below by someone who was there, and the manner in which the Times staff gleefully seized upon personal dirt about Schwarzenegger while avoiding personal dirt about Davis, does not instill confidence that the Times will use its investigative powers wisely.
Here is the inside story from a longtime, respected Timesian involved in the Schwarzenegger coverage. The following comments from this source are verbatim, except that I have added a few brackets for clarification and removed my own occasional interruptions:
"Toward the end, a kind of hysteria gripped the newsroom. I witnessed a deep-seated, irrational need to get something on this guy [Schwarzenegger]. By Wednesday before it was published, I counted not fewer than 24 reporters dispatched on Arnold, and this entire enterprise was directed by John Carroll himself."
"Carroll launched the project with the words: 'I want a full scrub of Arnold.' This was fully and completely and daily driven by Carroll. He's as good as his word on being balanced and trying to make this paper more balanced, he really is. But not when it came to Schwarzenegger. Carroll changed completely. It was visceral, and he made it clear he wanted something bad on Schwarzenegger and he didn't care what it was."
"The air of unreality among people here was so extreme that when they did the office pool, of something like 113 people who put in a dollar to bet on the outcome of the recall and on who would be chosen governor, only 31 bet 'yes' on recall and 'yes' Schwarzenegger to win. All you had to do was read a poll to know how wrong that was, but inside this place only about 25 percent of the people could see the recall coming."
"People inside here are far more detached from the new media reality. They are generally unaware that the Times is reviled by large numbers of Southern Californians."
"What I know for a fact is that they could have published the story much, much earlier. First of all, they had the Wendy Leigh story, the highly detailed story from a British writer, with highly detailed groping allegations, from which they got the Anna Richardson anecdote. She was named in the L.A. Times. They had enough stories from his past, very early on, to have the story in the bag many weeks before they did."
"Second, they fucked around with the Mark Arax story on steroids use by Schwarzenegger. Joel Sappell edited that, and it went on Page One, instead of trying to get the groping story in the paper fast. The steroids piece had been meant to be something much more than a portrait of his rough behavior in his bodybuilding days. It was a disappointment that much, much worse things about Schwarzenegger weren't found. They certainly tried. They should've finished up the big attack story on groping instead of slowing down to wrap up the steroids piece. It pushed the big attack story right into the final days of the campaign. It was incredibly, incredibly irresponsible for John Carroll to do that."
"It all happened amidst a poisonous atmosphere here against Schwarzenegger---a blatant political undertone that was everywhere in the newsroom. These are people who have been in the building a long time and have formed a culture together. It's easy for all of us to start thinking very much alike."
"The reporters probed everything they could think of about Schwarzenegger: his health, his businesses, his charities. They couldn't find out anything horrible about his charities, but they tried very, very hard. His business empire made him look good---so the business empire story was buried in the paper. It ended up on something like, I don't know, Page A36. And as these issues got abandoned because they produced no dirt on Arnold, as desired by Carroll, the team going after him got more and more focused on sex and steroids."
"It was awful to watch Carroll. It became a Capt. Ahab and Moby Dick thing where they felt an increasing need to nail those points that could most hurt Schwarzenegger. At times, it made me physically uncomfortable to be in the newsroom."
"There was a building roster of people assigned as this frenzy grew. By the week the story ran, a roster of more than 24 reporters had been fanned out over all aspects of Arnold in a flat-out effort to turn him upside down, and Carroll was openly visible in the newsroom in a way I have never seen before. That was really incredible to see. He was out of his office and in the newsroom, and this was his show, not Dean [Baquet's] show. And when reporters saw that he [Carroll] just needed to nail it and get whatever information toward that goal, it turned into a frenzy. People were running across the newsroom, people were racing out to knock on strangers' doors."
"The things that you have reported about Gray Davis attacking and throwing things at staff members are not the only things Gray Davis did that are well known within the Times. Not at all. There was more personal behavior to look into on Gray Davis that would have hurt his candidacy, if the Times had pursued it. They knew, and they didn't pursue it. As you said on FOX or CNN, Carroll very obviously did not create a team to dig into Davis' background. Mass hypnosis is the way it felt to me, when responsible people begin to suspend their responsible judgement like that. I don't really believe it was a conscious decision to help the Democrats over the Republicans. It didn't feel like partisan politics to me at all. I don't think it was that conscious. These are not bad people. An unthinking mass response, completely unthinking, is the only explanation I have."
"If you want to hang onto your job, you can't have an open discussion about this. If an editor really did make a speech at the A1 meeting [where stories are picked for the front page] that the Los Angeles Times was going to be hurt far more by this attack than Arnold Schwarzenegger, I really pray that is true, that somebody spoke out. I cannot confirm that. When they see Jill Stewart on a TV screen here, there is open, blatant antagonism. There is absolutely no self-examination going on at the Times."
"The mainstream press critics like those published on Romenesko are asleep as to what has happened here. They are defending the L.A. Times in every way. There should be no defense by media critics of what happened here. One woman did not sleep for two nights after a Times reporter showed up at her door, with the thinnest evidence, demanding to know if her child was Arnold's love child. It never panned out, it was untrue. Why has the L.A. Times become a tabloid, knocking relentlessly on people's doors for tabloid gossip? And would John Carroll have run a front page Love Child story if it had been true? Could we sink any lower?"
"At the end, the tabloidy bias leaked out all over the front page, even infecting the headline writers. You probably saw the story where Schwarzenegger announces his plans for his administration, and we headlined it something like, 'Actor Behaves As if He's Won.' That front page was pure tabloid."
"The paper used methods as if they were trying to crack a criminal enterprise. That is fundamentally what happened here. They took the rules of criminal investigation and overlaid them onto a political campaign, as if we had an organized crime figure running for office. One of the lead reporters is a good, seasoned Pulitzer journalist, who had not covered California, and it was his first week or so at the Times. He had taken a two-year hiatus in Alaska before arriving here. He really walked into this, and it's not his fault, and it's a shame. He got caught in an ugly dynamic that people above him created."
"I was deeply ashamed of the final days, after our first attack story ran. After that, we ran daily, unverified claims of groping against Schwarzenegger. Some people here insist that we couldn't run the first attack piece on Schwarzenegger any sooner than five days before the election because the groping claims took so long to verify. How were those groping claims of all those women at the end checked out in a few hours and pushed into the paper by next morning? What happened here, from day one, was deeply aberrant. Yes, our political coverage is skewed, like most papers, and so what? It's a fact of life. This was aberrant. It was outside of bounds. It was intense and real. To get something on him was the goal. No question, and no other goal."
The NY Times reports on how talk radio and the internet allowed Republicans to get their media-fisking messages out unfiltered by the political sieve of the print press:
Republicans on talk radio, the Internet and some cable television talk shows accused the newspaper of shilling for Gov. Gray Davis. And many voters agreed. "This is a Davis ploy � he's the king of dirty tricks," one Schwarzenegger voter said, adding, "If anything, it made me want to vote for him more."Mr. Schwarzenegger's election put more than incumbent politicians on notice. It also gave pause to the establishment news media, with implications that go beyond a single governor's race, political and media analysts said. Other candidates running as outsiders � like Howard Dean and Gen. Wesley K. Clark � are proving they can overcome potentially damaging coverage by positioning the news media as part of the establishment they are fighting.
They are being helped by two increasingly important factors. More outlets are available on radio, cable and the Web where partisan commentators can make their cases, unfiltered, to ever-larger audiences. And polls show that the public's perception of the mainstream news media is growing more negative.
"The media couldn't stop us because the people are becoming savvy to the media," said Jesse Ventura, the former wrestler who was governor of Minnesota from 1999 to this year, referring to Mr. Schwarzenegger and himself. "They're realizing the media's dishonest."
Mimicking the Schwarzenegger campaign's line that the Los Angeles Times articles about groping were a result of "puke politics" by the Davis campaign, Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host, told listeners on Election Day that the newspaper's journalists were "dastardly political assassins who use ink instead of bullets to hit candidates under the cover of objective journalism."
Another East Coast journalist gets the most basic recall facts laughably wrong:
Even when 45 percent of California's voters didn't pick a replacement candidate (because they voted "no" on the recall), Arnold Schwarzenegger's votes this time were 3.7 million from the remaining 55 percent, compared to Davis' 3.5 million from 100 percent of the electorate last year.
Can you believe it?
Berkeley Dean of Journalism: Most Bay Area residents are Lefties because they're not stupid like most folks in conservative areas -- and they don't live in those God forsaken places conservatives inhabit. Quotable:
"It strikes me that the better educated people are, more often than not, they tend to be more liberal, and I think this is a very well-educated area," said Orville Schell, noted author and dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.The intellectual attributes of the region are matched by its physical setting -- a place of such beauty and splendor that people come here and never leave.
"When you live in a beautiful place, which the whole Bay Area is, you draw people for whom that is important and the idea of preservation, moderation, of walking a little more softly, is important. And I think that creates a kind of liberal mind-set in an environmental sense and in a larger political sense," Schell said.
"There's really something here that is still worth protecting. You can't really say that about Los Angeles or many cities of America. They're finished.
These are the kind of folks who are training the reporters and editors at places like The LA Times. Get used to it.
I well remember journalism classes taken with a professor who ever four years served as a delegate to the Democrat Party National Convention. I learned not to raise my hand much.
Howard Owens has this great quote from Mark Halperin, political director for ABC News:
Let me tell you something that your viewers, I think, particularly should be a aware of as they follow the chance Arnold Schwarzenegger has to succeed. Most of the news your viewers, the news and information your viewers are going to get about Arnold Schwarzenegger the man and the emerging politician is going to come from media that's a little more radically left of center, that is dismissive of Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's a movie star, and because of his accent, that's dismissive of Arnold Schwarzenegger's intellect and of his capacity to be a broad governor in terms of his ability to reach a broad coalition.And they're going to be infused by friends of theirs that they see at cocktail parties and dinner parties who are more dismissive of him and feel about him the way a lot of Democrats felt about Ronald Reagan and feel about George W. Bush -- completely alienated from him; culturally in some ways; intellectually in some ways ...
I think people who are looking at it through that filter may well miss a deeper intellect that your story may suggest and somebody with the capacity to achieve his goals than they are going to give him credit for.
Owens also has a Bear Flag call to arms.
California to the press -- take your bias and shove it:
Arnold Schwarzenegger won, and Gray Davis lost, as did Cruz Bustamante, as did Arianna Huffington. But no one was more rejected in this 61 percent Republican tidal wave in an overwhelming Democratic state than the liberal press. Consider the media recalled.From the first signatures on recall petitions, the press was huffing and puffing with hysteria. Newsweek said the state "was in thrall to an earnest crank ... in the grip of what can only be described as a civic crackup." The New York Times called it a "throbbing political hangover." Peter Jennings warned, "The recall is on the verge of unleashing a political tempest. Some in California would say political madness."
When it was over, the press was still howling "Foul!" Remember how, after the GOP landslide in 1994, Jennings compared the public to 2-year-olds and complained "the voters had a temper tantrum last week"? There must be something in the drinking water at ABC. On the morning of the Schwarzenegger victory, there was his colleague Linda Douglass claiming (with no evidence provided) that "Schwarzenegger acknowledged that the recall campaign was the result of a statewide temper tantrum."
Of course, voters were upset, but national reporters didn�t dare tread near what might be causing this troublesome discontent: skyrocketing spending, tripled car taxes, slipping bond ratings, overpaid public-employee unions. Once the movie star entered the race, all the spotlights -- and all the nit-picking scrutiny -- were directed at him.
It didn�t matter that the people felt very obviously that Gov. Gray Davis was an incompetent in need of sudden retirement. It didn�t matter that the lieutenant governor who aspired to replace him had ties to a bizarre group believing several southwestern states should be sawed off America and handed back to the Mexicans. It didn�t matter than Gov. Davis tried to save himself by signing a bill to award illegal aliens state-sanctioned driver�s licenses, making it easier for homeland-security threats to move right into the mainstream of California -- and perhaps other states as well.
What mattered were mangled statements Arnold supposedly made in 1975 during the filming of his breakthrough documentary "Pumping Iron." What mattered were wild claims about group sex at the gym that Arnold made in the pornographic magazine Oui in 1977. What mattered was an anonymous female, "a former pro beach volleyball player," who claimed that Arnold touched her breast on a Santa Monica street in 1980. No longer were we being admonished by the press to "move on." Now, they were instructing the voters to back up.
The media labored hard against the recall. First, it was a "circus," a freak show for pornographers, porn actresses, disgruntled child stars and thong-underwear-selling self-promoters. Then, it was Arnold, obviously too stupid even to form complete sentences in a debate. Then, it was so unfair that a dedicated longtime public servant should be overturned by an actor with zero administrative experience, as if Davis� experience ruining the state wasn�t the issue.
When these lines didn�t work, it was the media -- not just Democratic partisans but the media -- who reached into the ugly bag and started throwing unsubstantiated rumors and groping stories. The Los Angeles Times, which dismissed last-minute entreaties in 1992 to bring Juanita Broaddrick�s rape story to public scrutiny as "toxic waste," spent weeks goading women into telling anonymous tales about a comparatively meaningless boob squeeze in the 1970s. Tom Brokaw, who couldn�t bear to touch Broaddrick�s rape story with a 10-foot pole, even as it aired on his own network, dared to lecture Arnold that his behavior "could be criminal."
The media hypocrisy is so obvious as to be transparent.
Which brings us back to ABC reporter Linda Douglass, who mangled Arnold�s alleged 1975 praise of Adolf Hitler. In 1975, he told an interviewer that he admired Hitler�s "way of getting to the people" but then added, "But I don�t admire him for what he did with it." Douglass artfully changed the quote and reported that he had said, "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it," which gave license to Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Gray Davis to spend the final weekend pretending out loud that Arnold had swastikas tattooed on his biceps. When Arnold protested the story to Peter Jennings, the anchorman replied, "But you had to know that this was all going to come out in a campaign. It is, after all, your past -- it isn't made up, is it?" In fact, ABC was making stuff up.
It�s obvious that Schwarzenegger, with his libertine movie-star misbehavior and social positions, not to mention his utter lack of political finesse in his pre-candidate days, was not the ideal conservative role model. But in the end, California voters just told the media to take their bias and shove it.
The LA Times gets fisked again:
The press and political elite still don't get the message - or the value - of the recall.These are tough times for political elites, who get mighty uncomfortable every time the hard-pressed, overtaxed, over-regulated, underappreciated taxpayer challenges their power.
The Los Angeles Times, which has been unyielding in its depiction of the recall as a giant hissy fit, and unprofessional in its last-minute airing of charges against the now-governor-elect, is facing not only the usual subscription cancellations but a loss of credibility because of its partisan and hectoring coverage of the race.
Even some conservative elites, such as columnist George Will (whose column is printed on Page 4 of today's Register Commentary section), are in high dither. Writes Will: "California's recall - a riot of millionaires masquerading as a 'revolt of the people' - began with a rich conservative Republican congressman, who could think of no other way he might become governor, financing the gathering of the necessary signatures."
That's not exactly true, given that the recall had long been under way, and was on schedule probably for the March ballot before Darrell Issa's dollars helped qualify it for October. But I do thank Will for reminding us that this was an imperfect revolt.
Perhaps we should have waited around for a perfect one.
Back to the Times. The day after Arnold Schwarzenegger won the race in a landslide, the Times - in all apparent seriousness - gave the man it tried so hard to destroy an outline for the future.
Of course if Der Gropenfuhrer, as one Times columnist graciously called him on Wednesday, puts the plan in place he will instantly become the source of another recall.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. In explaining "How the Engine Derailed," the Times editorial pins California's underlying fiscal dysfunction on several longstanding problems.
The recall has nothing to do with the outgoing governor's lack of leadership, or his commitment to showering special interests with special favors, or a left-leaning Democratic leadership that wants to tax and spend without any limits, or a souring business climate that has caused the state to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs.
It has nothing to do with the problem outlined by state Sen. Tom McClintock, who during his honorable but long-shot candidacy for governor, kept this key point on the table: "In the last four years, inflation and population have grown at a combined rate of 21 percent. Revenues coming into the state's coffers have increased 25 percent. ... We've had a 40 percent increase in state spending in the same period. And it is this rapacity and recklessness that turned a $12 billion surplus into a $35 billion operating deficit in a period of less than two years."
Nope, the problem isn't the spending. The problem is budgetary mechanisms make it too hard for the government to raise taxes every time it overspends its budget.
Problem No. 1, per the Times: term limits. They replaced professional legislators with novices. The pros, you see, were far better at raising taxes in a bipartisan manner, whereas their less-skilled replacements aren't as good at crafting tax-raising bipartisan budget deals.
Another key problem: The two-thirds vote rule. The newspaper calls it a "crippling restriction" that "allows for tyranny by a minority." Had it not been for the two-thirds vote requirement, however, Gov. Davis and the Democratic-dominated Legislature could simply have raised taxes by $38 billion to cover the budget gap. It would have been so easy. Actually, the rule is the ultimate protection by an unprotected majority (taxpayers) from a rapacious minority (state officials).
Next problem: Proposition 13. Never mind that mere mention of reforming it by Schwarzenegger adviser Warren Buffett almost cost the actor the election. This needs to be fixed. How dare the people put limits on property tax increases to protect themselves from being taxed out of their homes? Supporters of Prop. 13 aren't thinking about the hardships this imposes on bureaucrats who must now go to greater lengths to raise taxes, which we all know are too low (no matter how high they get).
To normal, hard-working, middle-class people, the problem is the political class and its zeal for showering influential groups with benefits, courtesy of the California taxpayer. It gets back to McClintock's point: The state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
To elites, the problem is that the public, which selfishly doesn't want to be taxed at confiscatory rates, keeps revolting. It keeps imposing by initiative what state leaders won't do: namely, place restrictions on taxation and remove the most craven politicians from power.
It's not just the restrictions on taxation that bother the elites, it's the nerve of the peons for sticking up for their money and freedoms. Columnist Will disses the two-thirds supermajority, but he mainly seems angered by the presumptuousness of the public.
How dare these spoiled brats engage in "direct democracy," something the founders frowned upon. I agree that representative democracy is generally a better approach, but what does a public do when liberty-hating zealots control every lever of power?
Should we just sit back and take it? Direct democracy isn't ideal. But it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Notice that attacks on the recall almost always drip with condescension. Will, writing from his home somewhere outside California, says "the people deserve to get what they demand. Don't they?"
To Peter King, in his Times column on Wednesday, the recall is the result of ungrateful Californians, who, instead of enjoying the sun and palm trees, are protesting "the car tax, which is used to finance firehouses, libraries and other local government endeavors," and "a new law that permits undocumented field hands, who make up the majority of the state's farm labor force, to obtain driver's licenses."
We're just a bunch of babies, you see. As long as the weather is nice, we ought to allow our earnings to be confiscated and our lives to be controlled by King's political allies. We're racists, too. All this anger, sparked I presume by the fascists on talk radio, is "aimed at the latest wave of new Californians," King intones. (Forget that nearly half of Latino voters voted yes on the recall.)
Now you understand. This recall had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal mismanagement, or a hostile regulatory climate that limits individual freedoms and punishes businesses, or a governor and Legislature completely controlled by some of the most aggressive special interests (unions, trial lawyers, Indian casinos), who claim to represent the "little guy" but seem mainly to fill their own pockets with cash.
Anger at the tripled car tax has nothing to do with people, already pinched by tough economic times, who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars more a year to pay for governments that neglect basic responsibilities yet shower their public-employee union workers with outrageously generous benefits. The license issue isn't about the rule of law or about pandering to ethnic groups. It's about racism and childish behavior. And rich guys wanting to be governor.
Fortunately, the governor-elect got a good taste right before the election of what the elite media are after (his hide) and should take their advice with as much seriousness as it deserves.
For two months, much of the national media has lazily characterized the recall push as a tawdry Republican power grab instead of another revolt by Californians against a corrupt state status quo. So did the results of Oct. 7 chasten these journalistic elites? Hardly - starting with the Washington Post's David Broder, the earnest pundit who's often considered the nonpartisan conscience of the media establishment. For decades, Broder has lamented voter apathy, saying low turnout encourages unresponsive politicians and the growth of special-interest power. So when the recall comes along and engages voters like no election in recent memory, Broder is elated, right? Wrong. His post-recall column dismissed the effort as "miserable" and "misguided." It's good for the public to be engaged, you see, only if the public is in sync with him.
"A checklist for terminating programs" by David Nott, President of the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation
"For the people to win, politics as usual must lose," Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his victory speech Tuesday. "I want to reach out to everybody."That�s a serious departure from the Terminator�s campaign rhetoric about �cleaning house� in Sacramento. And it makes his transformation even more evident; Schwarzenegger has gone from actor to Governor.
Schwarzenegger has laid out a thoughtful plan for his first 100 days in office, saying he will, among other things, repeal the tripling of the car tax; push for a state spending limit; reform the workers� compensation system; and obtain a detailed audit of state finances.
To implement these changes, and to be an effective leader, Schwarzenegger will unquestionably have to compromise with the Democrat-controlled state Legislature, and this is where things get dicey, particularly with the audit.
The state budget deficit for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2004, is estimated at anywhere from $8 billion to $20 billion, and a meticulous audit of the state�s finances will undoubtedly uncover additional problems and creative accounting.
Combine that with the fact that a court has already nixed $2 billion in bonds for state pensions and could very well strike down another $10 billion in planned bonds because voters never approved them, and we have the makings of a full-fledged budget disaster all over again.
The only way to deal with a mess of this magnitude is structural change, starting with Arnold�s audit.
As part of the inspection, each and every state program should be required to justify its existence by demonstrating relevance and results.
Longtime politicians and special interest groups like to scare people with cries of, �If the state cuts spending we�ll lose vital services and suffer dire consequences.� So let�s use the audit to define those consequences and make informed decisions about what is, and what isn�t, important.
We shouldn�t assume that since a program exists, it is needed. To continue, programs must answer key questions: Does the program provide an essential service to taxpayers and the state?
What do they spend and what do they accomplish?
Are the programs� functions still needed or are they outdated and duplicative?
If the program were eliminated would anyone miss it?
Programs that cannot prove their necessity to taxpayers should be temporarily suspended during this fiscal crisis and reevaluated at a later date.
In conjunction with the audit, the state should establish an ongoing assessment on all state programs, modeled after the 10-member Sunset Advisory Commission in Texas. The Sunset Commission issues a report on each agency with a recommendation to abolish or continue the agency; holds public hearings on its findings; and sets a date on which an agency will be eliminated unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. As a result, 44 agencies have been abolished and another 11 have been consolidated.
Showing the proverbial bank statement will make policymakers accountable for results. If they continue to fund programs, against the commission�s advice, they�ll have to explain their reasoning and defend the expense.
The $38 billion deficit this year didn�t motivate California legislators to take a critical look at their spending habits, but the resounding recall results demonstrating Californians� rabid thirst for fiscal responsibility and transparency just might.
Before the election, Senate leader John Burton, a San Francisco Democrat, said of Schwarzenegger�s plans for reform: �I think he�s got a little bit to learn. He ought to wait until he�s elected.� Well he�s been elected now, and it�s the Legislature�s leader and his colleagues who have a little bit to learn: Californians are ready to make tough choices and critically evaluate government spending. And we�re expecting Sacramento to do the same.
the Independent frets that, in jurisdictions like California, fear of a Davis-style recall "militates against the strong but unpopular action that governments have to take from time to time". Really? Isn't the more common problem that, in California as in Europe, an entrenched top-down political culture finds it far too easy to take "strong but unpopular action"? It's strong but popular action that governments seem to find hard to take - cutting taxes, enforcing immigration law, reining in inefficient bureaucratic spending, standing up to entrenched special interests, whether it's Indian tax-free gambling in California or French farmers ...California's problem was that it was beginning to take on the characteristics of an EU state, not just in its fiscal incoherence but in its assumption that politics was a private dialogue between a lifelong political class and a like-minded media ..
The "Arnold Effect" -- in Germany. Quotable:
The straight-talking Hollywood action star's election win in California has had an electrifying impact on Germany, leading to calls Friday for top politicians to voice clear ideas in simple language or be swept away at the polls."The more confused we are by what they say, the greater our longing for a man or woman with simple words," wrote Bild newspaper columnist Franz Josef Wagner. "The only problem is that it's the wrong ones who usually master simple language."
Schwarzenegger's victory in the California race for governor has led to editorials calling for German politicians to abandon their barely comprehensible speaking style in favor of "Klartext" (straight talk).
But Wagner and others also warn of the dangers of falling for simple remedies from loud Austrians who enthrall the masses.
(via Instapundit)
Thomas Sowell -- Is California crazy?:
The California recall election and its surrounding hoopla may have confirmed the suspicions of some people in other parts of the country that Californians are crazy. But not all Californians are crazy -- just the most affluent and highly educated ones.Although the state as a whole voted to remove the disastrous Governor Gray Davis from office by 55 percent to 45 percent, he received a solid majority of support in most of the upscale northern California coastal counties.
In San Mateo County, where the average home costs more than half a million dollars and the environmentalists reign supreme, keeping the vast majority of the land off-limits to building, 63 percent of the voters wanted Gray Davis to remain in office. In even more upscale Marin County, 68 percent of the voters were for Gray Davis. And in San Francisco, the furthest left of them all, no less than 80 percent voted to keep Gray Davis as governor.
There is a certain irony here, since the Democrats like to portray themselves as the party of the working people, with special solicitude for "the children" and for minorities. But working people, families with children and blacks are precisely the kinds of people who have been forced out of these three affluent and politically correct counties.
All three of these ultra-liberal counties have been losing black population since the previous census. Kindergartens in San Mateo County are shutting down for lack of children. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down since the last census, even though the population of the city as a whole has gone up.
Out in the valleys to which those who are not as affluent have been forced to flee, in order to find something resembling affordable housing, the vote was just as solidly against Davis as it was for him among those further up the income scale. Out where ordinary people live, the vote against Governor Davis was 64 percent in Merced County, 72 percent in Tulare County and 75 percent in Lassen County.
The time is long overdue to get rid of the outdated notion that liberal Democrats represent ordinary people. They represent such special interests as trial lawyers who keep our courts clogged with frivolous lawsuits, busybody environmentalists who think the government should force other people to live the way the greens want them to live, and of course the teachers' unions who think schools exist to provide their members with jobs.
Many of these people are over-educated, in the sense that they have spent many years in institutions which have propagandized them with the politically correct vision of the world -- even if they have not taught them much history, economics, or other mundane things.
Someone has said that people are not born stupid, but are made that way by education. Certainly that is true of what too often passes for education these days. You don't have to be crazy to want to keep Governor Gray Davis in office, but it helps.
This is the same Gray Davis who recently signed a bill to allow illegal aliens to get California driver's licenses. Using driver's licenses as identification, illegal aliens can now do pretty much whatever a citizen can do. Given our lax election laws, that probably includes voting.
Although Governor Davis is best known for the blackouts that his crazy policies on electricity brought on, he has been versatile in the havoc he has wreaked. Nor is he through yet. He could get writer's cramp from all the bills and appointments he signs before leaving office.
What can Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger do for California? Given the Democrats' solid control of the state legislature, Arnold is unlikely to get any laws passed reflecting his own views.
Nevertheless the new governor will have a line-item veto to cut back on some of the reckless spending that California's liberal Democrats specialize in. More than that, Schwarzenegger can use the bully pulpit of his office to educate the public on what is wrong with the bills he vetoes.
In short, he can promote sanity among the electorate, so that they do not keep putting in office the kind of people who make others wonder if Californians are crazy.
A toast from Austrians Alfred Gerstl and Albert Kaufmann to Arnold Schwarzenegger
the hometown boy -- and neo-nazi ass-kicker -- whose made it big in America.
"My candidate can beat Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante with one McClintock tied behind his back." -- Darrell Issa.
Note also -- Karl Rove calls the Schwarzenegger win a "rebranding" opportunity for California Republicans.
Winning changes everything -- Fresh Potatoes has the goods on on the car-tax flip-flop at the LA Times. Does John Carroll ever get embarrassed?
Among all the business folks and political hacks -- one very impressive Schwarzenegger transition team member:
Annelise Anderson -- Dr. Anderson is a Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. She was Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan Administration and focused on domestic budget policy. Prior to her service in the federal government, she was Professor of Economics and Finance at California State University, Hayward. Dr. Anderson earned her Ph.D. in Business Administration from Columbia University. She served on the Commission on Privatization in the Reagan Administration and Governor Pete Wilson's Council of Economic Advisors. Palo Alto.
Let's all hope Anderson is among the few who do the actual work of this transition "team".
More politically inspired "science" from Berkeley's Professor Henry Brady. Mickey Kaus is on the story:
Punch-card foe Henry Brady of Berkeley now claims that 176,000 votes were lost in the recall election due to punch-card balloting systems. But if the S.F. Chronicle's report is right, he gets this figure by comparing total ballots cast with total votes on the yes/no recall. Ballots without a vote on the yes/no question are presumed to be votes that were cast but somehow not counted due to malfunctioning voting mechanisms. But why weren't they intentional abstentions--for example, Latino Bustamante voters who hate Davis but couldn't bring themselves to vote "yes" on the recall, or who just rushed to the second part of the ballot? Here's the Chronicle's explanation:Part of the difference resulted from voters who chose not to vote on the recall, but based on past experience, most of the disparity consisted of votes that were cast but not counted, Brady said.
I don't see how Brady knows this. True, the number of "missing" votes varies between counties. But the big counties with punch cards (i.e. Los Angeles) also seem to be counties with large Latino populations that may have abstained in the manner described above. Brady would have to figure out some way of correcting for the proportion of Bustamante voters, or any other supporters of other candidates who might abstain on some other basis. That L.A. County showed even more missing votes than other punch card counties ("nearly 9 percent" versus an average of 7.7 percent) suggests that some factor other than punch cards was at work. ... I await Prof. Hasen's upcoming column, or a link to Brady's full study. But a previous Brady anti-punch-card study was so flawed it left Harvard Prof. Laurence Tribe, who had to defend it in court, humiliated on national television by Judge Alex Kozinski. And Brady's rush into the headlines--in time to let the obnoxious ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum declare a "defacing of democracy"--is not reassuring. ...
Overheard in the Beltway yesterday: Conservatives discussing the Arnold win: How bad will he be for conservatives:Conservative #1: Well, he has read Hayek.
Conservative #2: He may have read Hayek, but he sleeps with Maria.
-- The Corner
First there was Pumping Iron. Now there's going to be a Schwarzenegger for Governor documentary. Title suggestions?
Think he knew something the rest of us didn't?
Madsen Pirie, the president of the Adam Smith Institute, is feeling pretty smug. Three years ago he wagered �100 at 25-1 on Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the next governor of California.
And this isn't the only reason Mr. Pirie is pleased as punch about Mr. Schwarzenegger's victory.
Goodbye Sacramento .. Hello Las Vegas!!
UPDATE: Poynter Online:
Note to WashPost: LAT's Rivenburg sometimes pens satire A Los Angeles Times staffer writes: "Do you remember when the China News Agency lifted as straight news a satiric piece from TheOnion? It seemed the Chinese did not get satire. The same apparently holds true for the District of Columbia. The Washington Post has just done the same thing to the LATimes. The LAT has run a hilarious recall feature for many weeks by Roy Rivenburg -- totally satiric and fictional exaggerating and distorting all the crazy recall stuff. On Oct. 5, the WashPost published this (last paragraph) on the Las Vegas tiger attack:"The illusionists have also played a role in the California recall election. The Los Angeles Times has reported that their manager, Bernie Yuman, contributed $150 in Belgian chocolates to the campaign of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, while Gov. Gray Davis (D) pledged in August that he would fight to retain his job "like one of those cool white tigers owned by Siegfried and Roy."It's clearly based on an Aug. 5 LAT satire: July 23: On the campaign trail, Davis vows to "fight the recall like a Bengal tiger." When informed that Bengal tigers are on the verge of extinction, Davis pledges to "fight like Tony the Tiger." Aug. 7: Davis resumes his tiger theme, this time promising to "fight like one of those cool white tigers owned by Siegfried and Roy. Or maybe like Tiger Woods, whichever sounds meaner."
Bill Bradley vists the Schwarzenegger suites at the Century Plaza on election night.
And George Will goes on a one man riot against California conservatives. Quotable:
These Schwarzenegger conservatives -- now, there is an oxymoron for these times -- have embraced a man who is, politically, Hollywood's culture leavened by a few paragraphs of Milton Friedman.
The Heritage Foundation's "Townhall" has a page full of links to commentary on the California election here.
As always, Rough & Tumble sorts through the race to replace news so you and I don't have to. (Great job Jack. And many thanks for the link to PrestoPundit. And thanks most of all for the great site.)
Hugh Hewitt does a fisking on the Los Angeles Times -- and then offers some constructive advice:
Hire Weintraub back. Carol S. drove him away, so throw some money at him and get instant respect from all sides.Make Max Boot a regular contributor � twice weekly � and find a David Brooks equivalent to go with him.
Find a general columnist who isn't as predictable as your current line-up, and encourage him or her to talk to a few center-right people.
But primarily add or transfer talented reporters who understand budgets and interest groups and politics. When you throw amateurs at a story, you get amateur results. It showed throughout the budget crisis last summer, and glared throughout the recall.
UPDATE: "In the long run, I believe this will strengthen the paper's relationship with the readers" -- Times editor John Carroll on the Gropenator story.
The Wall Street Journal in a short piece titled Earthquake Arnold :
Special congratulations belong to California's voters, who proved all of the national mockery wrong. They were perfectly capable of separating the Ariannas from the serious candidates as well as the serious issues from last-minute political hits. The people who should be embarrassed are members of the press corps, both state and national, who were too busy sneering to see the real story: a brewing popular revolt unlike any since Proposition 13 a generation ago.
Media Research Center's Tim Graham on national press coverage of the California recall election. Graham leaves out the most significant fact about national political reporting on the race -- how often that reporting was simply factually bankrupt. This went for national reporting of all types and from all camps. The national guys were simply cluesless when it came to the California race. One exception, was John Fund's excellent Political Diary. But of course, this really wasn't an exception, because Fund has a California background as a former research analyst for the California legislature.
Professor Glenn Reynolds suggests that -- short of outright war -- recall elections might be just the thing for breaking up the stranglehold of special interests. Quotable:
.. people who criticize the whole idea of recalls as anti-democratic are missing something .. Recalls aren�t anti-democratic. They are, if anything, anti-republican � by which I mean that they�re inconsistent with the �republican principle� of representative government over direct democracy .. And representative government, for reasons that Madison, et al., spelled out in The Federalist, is a good thing. But it�s not the only good thing. A danger faced by all governments � including representative governments � is the danger that they will be taken over and paralyzed by what economist Mancur Olson, in a famous book titled The Rise and Decline of Nations, called a �web of special interests.� Because it pays for special interest groups and politicians to collude, lining their pockets at the taxpayers� expense, Olson argued that nations � and perhaps especially representative ones � would tend toward paralysis over time, as special interest groups locked up government revenues and fought off changes. That sounds a lot like what has happened in California, where the power of public employee unions and other special interests has gotten the state into a political and budgetary crisis from which it�s now trying to escape, but where the very same political structure, pre-recall, made it impossible to fix things because any serious change would threaten too many powerful interests. Olson wrote that it would take a major shock to break the web of special interests � he noted that Germany and Japan recovered so well after World War II in part because pre-existing special interest relationships were disrupted � and wondered at America�s comparative freedom from special interest webs given its long history of the same kind of government ..But the bottom line is that, short of a war, the recall process is a pretty good method of breaking up the web of special interests. All the cozy lobbyist-and-campaign-contribution relationships that existed under the Gray Davis regime will be rather drastically changed in the Schwarzenegger administration. And that�s probably a good thing for California�s long-term prospects, regardless of whether you think Arnold will be a good governor or not.
The recall process has hit the California political community like a thunderbolt. It�s the voters� way of signaling that they�re mad as hell, and don�t want to take it anymore. And it�s a way for them to shake up a political apparatus that (as California voters certainly seemed to think) has been serving its own needs, not theirs. And it�s better than a war!
Citizen Smash has a breakdown of some of the California recall numbers. Quotable:
102 thousand more people voted for Schwarzenegger than voted to keep Davis; 68 thousand more people voted for Schwarznegger than voted for Davis in last year�s general election.
As I pointed out below, Gray Davis owed his job to support in two places, the Bay Area (enveloping the immediate coastline) and the Los Angeles area. And as I said, he was going down because he had lost his grip in LA. And the numbers today show exactly that. Here is a county-by-county map showing how Davis's support held in the Bay Area (where Davis actually did much better in San Francisco this time), but fell apart in the Los Angeles area -- dipped to just above 50% in Los Angeles County itself -- and evaporated completely in all of the outlying counties of Los Angeles:
70% for recall in San Bernardino County
63% for recall in Ventura County
70% for recall in Riverside County
73% for recall in Orange County
76% for recall in Kern County
And here are the numbers from 2002.
And here is the map of the race to replace showing Schwarzenegger grabbing support across the state and in the Los Angeles area -- everywhere except the Bay Area.
Davis lost it in Los Angeles, and with it the governorship of California.
UPDATE: California Insider has his own "green state" "red state" analysis.
The NY Times California recall page has a helpful "flash" graphic called "Inside the Recall" with county-by-county population and 2002 voting stats. The map makes it clear that Davis has been the chosen governor of one-third of the state -- essentially Los Angeles and the Bay Area. In the 2003 recall fight the key battleground has been Los Angeles County -- Davis is struggling to retain overwhelming margins in his hometown, and he's been in Los Angeles constantly throughout the recall battle. But his firm grip on the county has slipped badly -- despite well publicized support efforts from the county's dominant newspaper. And the difference this time seems to have been all of those commuters on endless miles of LA freeway -- listening to the relentless air-war against Gray Davis on the radio. I have no doubt the average KFI listener in Los Angeles could tell you more about the California budget and current legislation coming out of Sacramento than could half-a-dozen hacks picked at random from the LA Times. And they would be more passionate about it. In the contest between the ground-war of the Davis-supporting LA Times, and the air-war of the radio news-talk stations, the ground-war hasn't stood a chance.
On election night perhaps the central stat to keep track of will be the Davis "no on recall" margins in Los Angeles county. If all those folks in all of those cars make it to the polls, look for "shock and awe" from the ballot box as the returns roll in -- and modern talk-radio air-warriors blow apart the LA Times ground-war in the battle for the hearts and minds of LA County voters.
And then the next thing to do is to take a look in the outlying anti-Davis counties -- San Bernardino, Ventura, Kern, Riverside, and Orange. What you should see here -- if the "shock and awe" air war has indeed done its job -- are near landslide "yes on recall" numbers. These are all areas where the gray ground-war monopoly has battled and retreated in the contest for dominant market share. And these are the sore-butt counties of Southern California -- the air-warrior home ground of the California recall movement. When the national press reports the California eathquake tomorrow night, that earthquake will have its ground zero literally up and down the San Andreas fault -- stretching from Kern County just north of Los Angeles, down to Riverside and San Diego Counties, east and south of LA. That eathquake is going to shake the political establishment of California down to its foundations -- and with it the editorial rooms in just about every major city in the state.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan hears the rumbling and senses a tectonic plate shift in the political culture of the nation .. oh, and Sullivan thinks Mickey Kaus is a wuss.
UPDATE: Calblog is hosting an election party. Drop in on the fun.
UPDATE: They're taking California recall election predictions at NRO's The Corner.
UPDATE: Roger Simon is doing it for the first time.
A bellwether? Howard Owens' stepfather -- a natural "hands-down" McClintock supporter -- is voting Schwarzenegger.
Don't we love the Times! KFI's John Kobylt identified the LA Times today as "an enemy combatant" in the war between taxpayers and the Democrat-lobbyist spending machine in Sacramento. Mickey�Kaus described, quote:
months of generally ponderous, embarrassingly biased and almost willfully misinformed recall coverage
from the Times over the course of the last few months.
Hugh Hewitt wonders if "Tuesday's vote has also become a referendum on the believability of the Los Angeles Times", and points out the shoddy and slanted reporting on the cover of Monday's pre-election edition of the Times.
Making PrestoPundit jealous -- Patterico fisks Steve Lopez. I really wanted to whack Sunday's Lopez column around the block -- but spent most of the day working. I work weekends at a major retailer which has cut commission sales wages by 2 - 5 dollars in the last year. (Read Patterico to see why this comes to mind). I make enough working Saturdays and Sundays (I take care of the kids during the week) to just about cover the family's state and local taxes.
The wife of a retiree at the store told me that in the old days a salemen for the retailer could support a stay-at-home wife and kids. The "old days" were the '70s and '80s. But what I have noticed even in the time I've been there is that most all of the 10 and 20 year native born sales force has quit the store -- and the sales staff has become largely foreign born (from all parts of the globe) as wages have fallen (that suppy- demand thing). Some on the sales staff are literally selling and learning English at the same time. The wife of this retiree now herself works --- as a bureaucrat for the INS. When I told a fellow saleman that I'd run into her, the person off-handedly said, "oh, I've got to call her and ask her a question" on some problem she faces with her visa or green card, or something. A bit of blogger reporting from one of my little corners of the world.
The latest from Bill Bradley on the LA Times and its complicity with the Democrat Party. Read the piece to the end to see again how the Times just makes stuff -- all the more to slant the news.
"Embrace the Puke" Gray Davis requests it, and Bill Lockyer delivers -- the AG wants to investigate Schwarzenegger for sexual battery and sexual harassment, even though the statute of limitations (one year) has run out on every allegation so-far brought against Schwarzenegger. That's right, you heard it correctly, AG Bill Lockyer has answered Gray Davis's request, and has joined the Davis in the last minute orgy of anti-Schwarzenegger "puke politics". Now, just who is surprised by that? Lockyer spoke out at a Gray Davis campaign event.
Peter Jennings interviews Schwarzenegger -- transcript. Jennings is still pushing the truth of ABC's erroneous "Schwarzenegger is a Hitler lover" storyline, even after it is debunked, and even after Schwarzenegger directly denies it. Here is Jennings: "It is, after all, your past. It isn't made up, is it?"
And then when Schwarzenegger says that none of the women raising charges ever called him on it is in the past, Jennings sees a chance to suggest that Schwarzenegger is "blaming the victim", throwing out this stinkbomb: "Are you blaming the women?"
This is a rather pathetic form of "gotcha" journalism. The press does suck, and the suck starts at the top with the NY Times and the major networks, and it only picks up steam as you go downhill to papers like the LA Times. A useful site with full coverage of the Democrat press, its bias and its incompetence, is the Media Research Center.
The Brokaw-Schwarzenegger interview -- transcript. Brokaw says that Schwarzenegger's alleged actions are criminal. All the lawyers and law professors I've read on the matter say the opposite. Is Brokaw making it up as he goes? Or is he simply reading directly from the Davis campaign talking points memo?
Tim Graham weighs in:
It's just a slimefest in the morning these days. NBC's "Today" featured Tom Brokaw's interview with Arnold, and Brokaw lectured Arnold that some of these groping matters could be considered criminal. Isn't that cute? Tom Brokaw could never even let the words "Juanita Broaddrick" escape his lips -- and now he's lecturing Arnold [about sexual assualt] ...
UPDATE: Tim Graham has more:
Tom Brokaw on why the Paula Jones allegations, which became a very large legal problem for Bill Clinton: "Why didn't we put it on earlier? It didn't seem, I think to most people, entirely relevant to what was going on at the time. These are the kinds of charges raised about the President before. They had been played out in the Gennifer Flowers episode. The American public had made a kind of decision about his personal conduct and whether it had relevance in his personal life. And it seemed at that time it didn't have the news weight." That's Brokaw on the CNBC show "Tim Russert," May 9, 1994, on avoiding the Jones allegations for three months.
Drudge leads Sunday night with moldy news from Thursday! I guess we can either count that as a political endorsement from Drudge, or we can say that news on dead trees has scooped Drudge by several days. Or maybe he's only pulling out the stops again to hype his only in LA Sunday late-night radio broadcast.
10,000 cheer Schwarzenegger in Sacramento. Quotable:
"He doesn't draw as big a crowd as Hitler did"
-- Bob Mulholland, California Democrat party operative.
UPDATE: Don't miss Bill Bradley on the Schwarzenegger rally, the latest poll data and more.
100% of voters -- give or take the margin of error -- are following the recall election "very" or "somewhat" closely.
UPDATE: Worth remembering -- this election is already one-fifth over, depending on the turnout. LA county has had long lines at the touch screen voting machines for days. Elections don't take place on a single "snapshot" day anymore.
Roy Rivenburg's golden recall diary memories. Outtakes:
July 24: Davis slams the recall as "a right-wing coup designed to hijack state government from the Indian casinos, state employee unions and other special interests who bought Sacramento fair and square."
Aug. 13: Although Davis can't legally run on the second part of the ballot, a mysterious Dave Gravis announces his candidacy.
Oct. 3: After unidentified sources plant charges that Schwarzenegger once praised Hitler, Leno chimes in, "The odd thing is, Hitler is now three points ahead of Gray Davis in the polls."
And there's more. Don't miss what Rivenburg slipped into the LA Times with his Oct. 4 diary entry.
The Times maintains that none of the women came forward at the behest of Schwarzenegger�s opponents. That claim, however, is looking increasingly dubious. One of the three women in the story says she came forward at the urging of Jodie Evans, described by the Times as a peace activist and "co-founder of the women�s peace group Code Pink." At best, this is an incomplete, misleading description.Here�s what the newspaper should have said about Evans. She is actually a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. Evans is also the ex-wife of Westside financier Max Palevsky, the man who gave Gray Davis his first job in politics as the fund-raiser in Tom Bradley�s 1973 mayoral campaign. Oops! Someone should have told John Carroll, the Times editor and anti-bias crusader ...
"Join the Boycott" a "cyber connected" group of "Friends of Israel" have been boycotting the LA Times from some time now. They don't support Schwarzenegger, but they do see the late election coverage of the Times as part of a pattern of bias at the paper.
UPDATE: "No" on L.A. Times, "Yes" on Recall.
Man bites dog. The New York Times goes after The National Enquirer for biased news coverage. Not enough sleaze, charges the NY Times.
Sexual harasser Bill Clinton throws away the Don't Call list, bombarding California voters with automated telephone calls for the Gray Davis political campaign. (Yes, I know that politicians gave themselves an exemption from the law).
Fresh Potatoes walks the precinct:
Today, I visited every household containing a Republican voter in my precinct and in the neighboring precinct. Of the approximately 75 people I met and spoke with (some folks weren't home), I found two (probably McClintock) people who were non-committal on Schwarzenegger. No one talked about the groping allegations. No one talked about the bogus Nazi allegation. A few people said that they were backing Schwarzenegger and not McClintock because thought Schwarzenegger could win. Otherwise there is solid -- almost unanimous -- support among Republicans for Schwarzenegger in the two precincts I walked.
He also gets great fan mail.
1,000 reader cancellations and counting. I ran into a woman today at lunch whose daughter was one of the 400+ cancellers who called the LA Times to give the paper a piece of her mind. It's a household were both parents work full time jobs, and the grandmother takes care of the kids. It's a four car household, and the Davis tax is going to clobber them over the head like a sledgehammer when it comes due in the mail. The grandmother is average jane former Democrat who now votes Republican, and who knew an amazing amount about state politics and the state's budge problems. She reads the Times (or did until last week), but gets most of her news from radio, including KFI Los Angeles. She knew all about Bustamante, knew more than I do about bills being signed by Davis -- and she is a huge Schwarzenegger fan. She thinks McClintock is too conservative for California, and thinks the LA Times is out to get Schwarzenegger because its "so liberal". She didn't care at all about Schwarzenegger's groping, and condemned the women coming forward for not saying something earlier. It is all dirty politics in her mind -- the dirty politics of the LA Times.
Well, so much for my random sampling of the California electoriate two days out from the election.
Postscript -- I ran into the lady when she sat down to read my LA Times at the table while I was in line getting lunch. (smiley thing here).
Oh, and quotable from the article:
the [LA Times] reporters had just made "cold calls" to people working in the film industry and women listed in the credits of movies starring Schwarzenegger [according to John Carroll, editor of the Times].
Quotable:
"Schwarzenegger himself has said that he is guilty of acts of this kind."
-- PrestoPundit, on Schwarzenegger's unacceptable behavior with women.
That said, now read this. And a bit of PrestoPunditry -- I really dont' think the argument made [Arnold supporters are clamming up when it comes to Schwarzenegger's own admission of guilt] is true of the "Join Schwarzenegger" blogosphere -- and it may not be true of all that many in the general public. "Where there is smoke there is fire" -- a pretty clear statement, and everybody, I think, got it. If you didn't get it, raise your hand.
UPDATE: I had Schwarzenegger's initial full admission up on the web before anyone else, pieced together (at first) from fragments in various wire service reports. I have a life outside of blogging, so I haven't been able to get everything on the blog -- I started blogging the individual public accusers, before the numbers became to much for me, and the kids came down with colds, and needed extra (nighttime) attention.
UPDATE: Schwarzenegger has all along said that many of the specific charges against his are not true, and that some types of charges against him are not true. So it is a distortion to say that Schwarzenegger all along has said that he has done all of the kinds of things charged against him. He's actually consistently and repeatedly said just the opposite. To imply or state otherwise -- as the press repeatedly has done -- is to get the story wrong .. not that there is anything new or shocking about the press getting a story wrong, mind you.
boifromtroy does the Bear Flag League roundup. (yes, I know, I know, I do need to update my Bear Flag League link list).
Have you cancelled the LA Times? If you have, I'd like to hear your story, in the comments section.
UPDATE: The number to call to cancel is 1-800-252-9141. I've cancelled the paper so many times it's silly for me even to think of ever subscribing to the paper again -- but every football season I get the urge to re-subscribe. In fact, my wife did attempt to subscribe for Sunday only service (she likes the coupons) -- but the paper botched our subscription, and we're still waiting for it to arrive. Who knows what happened. We live in a new area, and perhaps the Times can't figure out where the house is. The Times no-delivery people assured us when we tried calling them that the paper would be at the house later in the day. Of course, we never got a paper.
Daniel Weintraub reminds us of what it's all about. Quotable:
Davis had become the modern-day equivalent of the California pols who did the railroads' bidding. He raised and spent a record $70 million clinging to office in 2002, including $10 million to help defeat a moderate Republican, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, in that party's primary. Capitol lobbyists groused privately that it took $100,000 in contributions just to secure a meeting with the governor, and the president of the California Teachers' Association complained that Davis hit him up for $1 million while they discussed education policy in the governor's office.Much of the governor's war chest came from the state's public employee unions, and he rewarded them handsomely. While most rank-and-file government workers got decent raises and a modest pension boost, Davis gave his biggest donors favored treatment. The prison guards got a 30-percent-plus raise over five years and a promise of pensions that would let them retire with 90 percent of their salary at age 50. Within weeks after the contract was signed, the correctional officers' union, which had spent $2.3 million helping Davis get elected, dropped another $250,000 into his campaign kitty.
Film producer and Codepink activist Patricia Foulkrod on Schwarzenegger and Clinton:
She admitted that Bill Clinton sexual peccadilloes were as inexcusable as Arnold's. "The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant," she said. "If Arnold was a brilliant pol and had this thing about inappropriate behavior, we'd figure a way of getting around it. I think it's to our detriment to go on too much about the groping. But it's our way in. This is really about the GOP trying to take California in 2004 and our trying to stop it."
BILL AND ARNOLD: What's the difference, some ask? Item one: Clinton was faced with actual civil lawsuits, claiming sexual harrassment. Once private life gets dragged into the courts, the press has no option but to cover it. Item two: most of Clinton's sexual targets were women who worked for him or were under his direct authority. Some of Arnold's targets were on movie sets where he certainly had social power but where he was, as far as I know, not the owner or direct boss. Item three: none of Arnold's incidents involve actual sex, or exposure of sex organs, or alleged rape, whereas Clinton's did. Item four: Arnold has fessed up. Clinton lied under oath. Item five: Arnold hasn't exactly gone around saying he is a champion of women's rights and the dignity of women. Clinton did ...
LA Times Covers Up Davis Violence on Female Staff -- Paper Put Two Hit Teams on Arnold, Zero Hit Team on Davis (Oct 4, 2003) ~ By Jill StewartI couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.
Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.
It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.
Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.
Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.
Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.
I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.
Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?
I have no idea. Or, could she be telling the truth? I have no idea. And neither does the Los Angeles Times.
If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:
Here's my proof:
Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients, and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.
I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.
The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.
He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown, and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.
He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."
Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fundraising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.
The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!'"
After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.
Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.
Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.
Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?
Nobody.
The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of the gross bias within the paper. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.
Roger Simon:
According to the most recent poll,the LA Times is failing miserably in its attempt to bring Schwarzenegger down. Arnold's percentages are actually going up as the Times continues to fan the flames of the scandal. What's interesting to me is that the paper didn't see that coming. It is a rather surprising example of psychological naivete coupled with an equally extensive lack of self knowledge on the part of the editors and publisher.Let's start with the obvious: The LA Times is a virtual monopoly and everyone in Los Angeles knows it and most don't like it. Sure the paper gets a tiny bit of competition from the LA Weekly, the Daily News and the OC Register, but the operative word is "tiny." The New York Times in no way sits astride NY the way the LA Times sits astride LA. New York has a vibrant, competitive newspaper culture; LA has a dead newspaper culture.
Still, LA has a reasonably informed populace and that populace knows when the paper is using its monopoly to bully someone, even if that someone is a movie star with giant pecs ...
The National Democrat party takes part in the Schwarzenegger "Hitler" smear. Quotable:
The Democratic National Committee issued a resolution Saturday calling on Schwarzenegger to apologize for the alleged Hitler remarks. The Republican gubernatorial front-runner dismissed the move as "sleaze politics" and said for the third consecutive day that he despises Hitler.
Schwarzenegger attacks the LA Times. Quotable:
I think they're part of trying to derail my campaign, I mean part of the puke campaign that Davis launched now ... They want to see Gray Davis in there.
PUKE! Gray Davis calls on Bill Lockyer to investigate Schwarzeneggers sex behavior. Someone please remind me what Bill Lockyer said about Davis, puke politics, and the Democrat party.
Knight Ridder/NBC poll -- its 37 percent Schwarzenegger, 29 percent Boostmytaxes, and 15 percent McClintock.
Davis calls for a criminal investigation of Schwarzenegger for sexual battery. And interestingly enough, the Chronicle goes public with long spiked charges that Davis has physically assaulted one of his staff members. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger supporters .. raised issues about Davis' volatile temper, including an incident in which he allegedly threw an ashtray at a staff worker who later had to take a stress leave. Davis called the longtime employee and apologized on her answering machine, according to news reports of the incident.
New Republic "literary editor" Leon Wieseltier on Schwarzenegger in the bubble-heads column. Quotable:
"Schwarzenegger is obviously not anti-Semitic or an admirer of genocide," he said. "Hitler does not appear to have been his moral ideal, but his business model. His old fondness for the F�hrer is just another expression of the animating principle of his life and movies: the worship and steady acquisition of power. Sacramento is simply the biggest Hummer he can buy."
Note the McCarthite "fondness for Hitler" trope making the rounds of the second-hand thinkers on the left. Actually, the bubble-head scores some points and replays a few choice quotes from our not so distant past. Worth a read. (I can't believe I'm writing such a thing).
Lefty Stanford historian attacks Proposition 13, Schwarzenegger, those who believe in limited government -- and California voters. Did I leave anything out?
Another one has drunk the Kool-Aid. Quotable:
Reasonable people can debate whether this has anything to do with whether Arnold would be a good Governor. Under the circumstances of this election, reasonable people can vote for him, even knowing everything that has emerged regarding his groping tendencies. But reasonable people who have been following this would have to agree that the guy appears to have acted like a complete jerk for much of his life. The early indications of this .. were right. It can't be fun to be his wife right now.
Read the whole thing.
David Horowitz on Davis, the LA Times, and Hollywood, etc.. Quotable:
The frontpage lead story in today's paper [LA Times] trumpets Davis's slimely attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger based on the latest hate rumors dredged up from the Democrats' gossip mills and featured as news stories in the Times: "If true, [Schwarzenegger's] personal behaivor was disturbing and unacceptable and his professed admiration for Adolf Hitler unconscionable," Davis said. Where to begin? The "politics of personal destruction"? McCarthyite associations from an ancient past? The tabloid garbage which Davis and the Times are working off is years and sometimes decades old. He pinched an actress in Hollywood? That makes him a boy scout by industry standards. This is the town whose liberals give Academy Awards to their heroes who drug thirteen-year-olds and rape them. Not to mention Davis's own friend and chief promoter who in the White House poked a 20-year-old intern in the groin with a cigar, groped a widow and probably raped a nurse before that. And was defended by every Democratic pol, male and female alike, shrieking -- it's his private life! it has nothing to do with being President! etc. etc ...
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- neo-nazi ass-kicker. And the original (translated) neo-Nazi ass kicker story is here.
How the Democrat press reports on Democrats, and how the Democrat press reports on Republicans:
Tom Brokaw is not the only journalist or outlet to demonstrate a double standards and some hypocrisy in jumping on the allegations about Arnold Schwarzenegger�s inappropriate sexual advances when those same journalists and outlets delayed or downplayed the more serious Juanita Broaddrick charge that Bill Clinton raped her and, in late 1993, the Arkansas troopers� claims about procuring women for Bill Clinton -- stories which both broke no where near election time and, therefore, the media should have been less reticent to report than a charge raised days before balloting.It was the Los Angeles Times, in fact, which in December 1993 was the first mainstream media outlet to report the recollections of the troopers, but the networks didn�t find that anywhere near as newsworthy as this week�s LA Times story on Schwarzenegger.
Brit Hume recalled the LA Times� hypocrisy, reporting in the �Grapevine� segment of his October 2 Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC: �The LA Times today ran a front page article, accompanied by two pages inside, on the accusations now lodged against Arnold Schwarzenegger for making unwanted advances years ago. Not until the tenth paragraph of that story do readers get a response from the Schwarzenegger camp. But, four years ago when then-President Clinton was being accused by Juanita Broaddrick -- remember her? -- of a brutal sexual assault 20 years earlier the LA Times buried that story on page 13 under a headline that read quote, 'Clinton Camp Denies Alleged Sex Assault.' And he article began with a denial from Mr. Clinton's lawyer.
�And when syndicated columnist George Will later wrote that quote, 'it is reasonable to believe that Clinton was a rapist 15 years before becoming President,' the Times cut that line out of the column.�Tim Graham, the MRC�s Director of Media Analysis, passed along this summary of past media resistance to touching initial allegations against Bill Clinton:
While the Los Angeles Times laid out its investigation of Arnold Schwarzenegger�s alleged sexual harassment, the Times isn�t always interested in running last-minute exposes that have the potential to derail a political campaign. In 1999, the New York Times recalled allegations that Gov. Bill Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick: �The allegation was passed on to reporters for the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times in the waning days of the 1992 presidential campaign. Regarding it as the kind of toxic waste traditionally dumped just before Election Day, both newspapers passed on the story.�
For more on that story see the February 24, 1999 CyberAlert.
For its part, the Times also dismissed the Broaddrick story in 1999 with a media navel-gazer by Josh Getlin and Elizabeth Jensen, with the subheadline "Whether a woman�s allegation of sexual assault by Clinton in 1978 is true is secondary to competitive pressure." In the story, Times national editor Scott Kraft sniffed Broaddrick can "almost certainly not be proved or disproved today."
For more on how outlets who leapt to cover Anita Hill�s unproven allegations vs. [how it cover] Juanita Broaddrick�s, see this MediaWatch article.
As for the networks� receptivity to Los Angeles Times investigations of sexual impropriety, recall that in 1993, Times reporters William Rempel and Douglas Frantz reported on the allegations of Arkansas state troopers that then Gov. Bill Clinton used them to set up meetings with women. See how other media outlets shrunk from that investigation, as recounted in MRC�s MediaWatch newsletter.
I've know about the Hitler story for months. The story is at least six years old. It wasn't news and wasn't worthy of reporting -- even on a blog. And the reports in the press have been about as accurate as Joe McCarthy was when he was making charges about communists -- no, actually what has appeared on ABC news, in the LA Times, and elsewhere has been less accurate and less true than anything said by Joseph McCarthy. And they are been as well sourced and as well researched as a Joe McCarthy communism charge.
Most of the lies spread by the news establishment are cleared up by the NY Times -- in their third attempt to get the story right, after two terribly shoddy attempts. The press really does suck.
Good coverage of the botched Hitler coverage here.
NBC on Clinton vs. NBC on Schwarzenegger:
Tom Brokaw�s hypocrisy. Back in 1999 when his own colleague, Lisa Myers, landed an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who accused President Clinton of raping her 20 years earlier (1978), Brokaw refused to report it on the NBC Nightly News. But on Thursday night, Brokaw jumped right on the Los Angeles Times story about Arnold Schwarzenegger�s inappropriate sexual advances, going back to 1975, three years before the Broaddrick claim, and which fell far short of rape.In 1999 February of 1999 Bill Clinton was not facing an election, while Schwarzenegger is facing one less than a week away and that, you�d think, would make the media more reticent to bring up events from decades ago.
Back in February of 1999, Brokaw only allowed Broaddrick�s name onto his show as part of a brief plug for the Myers interview on Dateline and he could muster nothing stronger that referring to her �controversial accusations.� As recounted in the February 26 CyberAlert about the February 24 NBC Nightly News and Dateline:
�When Today landed an exclusive with Linda Tripp a couple of weeks ago, Tom Brokaw played an excerpt the night before. But in this case, despite another exclusive for NBC, this vague end of show plug Wednesday night from Brokaw represents the totality of NBC Nightly News time devoted to Broaddrick: 'Tonight on Dateline NBC Lisa Myers with an exclusive interview with the woman known as Jane Doe No. 5, Juanita Broaddrick. Her controversial accusations about President Clinton. Dateline tonight at 8, 7 Central.��Fast forward to Thursday night and Brokaw didn�t hesitate to jump on the charges against Schwarzenegger forwarded by another media outlet: �A graphic article on the front page of today's Los Angeles Times detailing the allegations of a half dozen women. They told the paper Republican candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger sexually groped and humiliated them in actions that supposedly took place over three decades.�
From Costa Mesa, Campbell Brown summarized the allegations: �Among the claims: That he groped their breasts, made lewd sexual suggestions and tried to remove one woman's bathing suit in an elevator.� Brown helpfully added how �a campaign aide to Democratic Governor Gray Davis called Schwarzenegger's actions a crime meriting charges.�
Brown concluded by giving credibility to another allegation she had no ability to verify: �The Schwarzenegger campaign had hoped the candidate's apology would out the issue to rest, but at Schwarzenegger's very next campaign event Democratic protesters showed up with a young women who made yet another claim that Schwarzenegger had harassed her too.�
It seems he was this way when he got here ...
Another accuser was Dan Lurie, a prominent figure for decades in the sport of bodybuilding, who told The Associated Press on Friday that he watched in amazement as Schwarzenegger repeatedly groped waitresses at a snack bar at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York around 1969 or 1970. "I said, `Arnold, what are you doing?" Lurie, now 80, recalled from his home in New York. "He said, `I want sex, this is what I do in my country.'
Another one. This one says that Schwarzenegger put his hand on her hind end. She's working with the crazy lady to produce anti-Schwarzenegger ad spots.
Prepare for three more days of puking. Note that Davis condemns Schwarzenegger for behavior which seems like high school antics next to Clinton's sexual assualt of Juanita Broaddrick -- or, as reported by Jill Stewart, Davis's physical assualt of his own staffers. Of course, Davis has been campaigning with Clinton, and has used Clinton in his campaign advertising. It's got to be all about puke for Davis, because the man cannot have any principled objection to folks who have committed sexual outrages far more disturbing than any Schwarzenegger has been charged with. When it comes to sexually abusive behavior, evidently all that matters to Davis is the party label.
And yet more puking. Note Feinstein's classic smear of Schwarzenegger.
Another puke festival.
Arnold Schwarzenegger -- the world's most famous human biotechnology experiment -- and how this may help explain his unacceptably selfish and demeaning behavior.
Rookie Bear Flagger Patterico's Pontifications comes up with an exclusive -- the LA Times' Roy Rivenburg criticizes the paper, saying "I wish my paper had a pro-recall columnist or two to balance out the predictable Lopez/King/Morrison/Skelton blather," among other things. Check it out.
Gray Davis's lead campaign supporter has been credibly charged with sexual harassment and sexual assault. Rather than being anonymous, the women involved have gone public. Will Davis pull his campaign ads? Is the LA Times on the story?
The biggest industry in Los Angeles is the entertainment industry. The story the LA Times broke yesterday on Schwarzenegger was a story (for the most part) of sexual harassment on the job in the entertainment industry. Schwarzenegger is a major player in LA's biggest industry. And this industry is a central part of the Times' news beat. So if the Schwarzenegger harassment story was worth reporting today, it was worth reporting years ago -- when the story first came to light. Here you had a major story -- a story which no doubt goes beyond Mr. Schwarzenegger -- and the Times happily sat on its hands. Only when politics entered the equation did the Times motivate itself to act.
It's impossible to know just how big of a hit Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken. But it is clear already that the reputation of the LA Times has take a massive hit -- solidifying its reputation for biased and politicized news reporting. How stupid can the paper be? The most important thing a paper has to go on is credibility. But by shear stupidity of timing -- publishing "dirt" only five days away from an election -- the Times has managed to created the perception that it is not in the news business, it's in the business of producing "hits" on disfavored political cadidates -- i.e. it's in knee-cap busting business of Davis-style "puke" politics. Unbelievably dumb. Whether or not the perception reflects the truth -- as so many now believe.
Right on the Left Beach comes to similar conclusions.
UPDATE: Susan Estrich rips the LA Times:
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.
But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics.
UPDATE: The editor of the Times defends his paper's behavior. Jill Stewart is not impressed, ""I think it was a planned hit by the L.A. Times .. You'd almost have to be working for the Democratic party to throw it out this late when you know Schwarzenegger would have no time to respond. It's staggering that the L.A. Times has done this."
UPDATE: The LA Times -- responding to pressure from PrestoPundit -- investigates the entertainment industry.
The NY Times -- following the lead of the LA Times -- runs with unverified rape threat charges against Schwarzenegger, made by a woman named Gail Escobar, who showed up at a Schwarzenegger rally with AFL-CIO operatives.
UPDATE: Bill Bradley has much more on Escobar and her Davis connections (unreported by the NY Times and the LA Times).
Jill Stewart in the Press-Telegram this morning:
The only thing Davis or Bustamante can hope for is something with which to taint Schwarzenegger ...
Must have been written sometime before 9 p.m. last night ...
"Do you read the Times?"
"No!"
Do you believe the Times?"
"No!"
"Do you trust the Times?"
"No!"
Shoutout by thousands at the Schwarzenegger event in Orange County, where the Times continues to retreat in its competition with the OC Register.
Hugh Hewitt on the LA Times. Quotable:
The Times' dogged support of Gray Davis has been remarkable, but not even Times critics expected so bald a descent into Mulholland-puppetry. Expect more to follow. Having gone this far past standard journalistic practice to prop up Davis, the paper has no reputation left to lose ..
More rich irony. The Bill Clinton sexual harassment apologist organization Moveon will attack Schwarzenegger -- on the issue of sexual harassment.
Calhusband on the LA Times:
The Los Angeles Times is making the news rather than reporting it. Throughout this campaign they have distorted their coverage in an effort to influence the result. This ranges from calling the recall "undemocratic", to referring to Arnold as "the actor", to the results of their biased polls, which have consistently shown the race tighter than every other pollster thought it was. A couple of weeks ago, they and Davis tried to spin that the race was tightening and that Davis had the momentum. It simply was not true. It was just what they hoped, and what they hoped to accomplish.
Jill Stewart and KFI's John and Ken were creaming the LA Times today for their politically motivated coverage of California politics. Stewart reminded KFI's huge audience that the Times has in the past spiked accounts of Gray Davis's physical and verbal abuse of his staff. Patterico's Pontifications has been blogging this story, and has an update with links. Stewart's original reporting on this matter can be found at Winds of Change.
UPDATE: Jill Stewart repeated her charges against Gray Davis and the LA Times on MSNBC. Mickey Kaus reports:
Jill Stewart was just on MSNBC's Abrams Report referring to her reports charging Gray Davis with "physically attacking his own staffers, female staffers." She says she was told the LA Times didn't follow up on her pieces because it didn't want to rely on anonymous sources!
Now it's ABC News recycling old news of Schwarzenegger in 1975 talking about Hitler. Only ABC seems not to know -- or not to care -- that this old news. This will simply add to the perception that we've entered the window of purely partisan "puke" politics -- with the press taking a lead roll in the pukefest.
Here it is. The LA Times unloads it's dirt on Schwarzenegger.
UPDATE: "I know that the people of California can see through this trash politics. Let me tell you something, let me tell you something. A lot of those that you see in the stories is not true, but at the same time, I have to tell you that I always say, that wherever there is smoke, there is fire. That is true. So I want to say to you, yes, that I have behaved badly sometimes. Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful but now I recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that and I apologize because this is not what I'm trying to do. When I'm governor, I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women, a champion for the women. And I hope that you will give me the chance to prove that. Now let's go from the dirty politics back to the future of California." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, this morning in San Diego.
UPDATE: California Insider gives some background on the LA Times reporters bringing us this story, and some commentary. Quotable:
The piece is credible, and disturbing. The disclosure of the incidents does not seem to have been orchestrated by an opponent�s campaign, although The Times does not describe in detail how it came upon the women other than to say they did not approach the newspaper on their own or through any of Schwarzenegger�s campaign rivals. Although none of the women involved ever filed a legal action against Schwarzenegger, the behavior described is abusive and crude ...I think Schwarzenegger is helped as much as he is hurt by the timing. The campaign has prepared the world for the possibility of late chargtes of a personal nature. And he might be able to use the timing itself to try to fend off the allegations.
UPDATE: More from California Insider. Quotable: ".. he is trying to have it both ways by denying the specific allegations in The Times while apologizing for other behavior not linked to specific women or actions."
UPDATE: Der Schwarzengroper -- Kausfiles has an instant reaction.
UPDATE: Another instant reaction from LA Observed. Quotable:
I haven't read every Schwarzenegger investigation piece, so I don't know all that's come before, but my sense is this adds cases but isn't a huge revelation. Anyone who believes the probable next governor is without character issues hasn't been listening or doesn't care. Is the story's timing suspicious? Not to me. You work these kinds of stories as long as you can, trying to get everything there is to get and cross checking all you can. There's no urgency to rush into print at the risk of being wrong. The only timing consideration for me is to not run the story so late it hits unfairly, on the final weekend. In this case there is adequate time for the Schwarzenegger campaign to respond, if they wish. But I doubt they were surprised anyway. (Sean Walsh does give the blanket denial in the story.)
UPDATE: Xrlq weighs in. So does Fresh Potatoes. And here's boomshock. Also, Andrew Sullivan.
UPDATE: And Peter Robinson. Quotable:
Arnold has now apologized ... An acceptable statement in itself, but one that raises questions about Arnold's political judgement. Since he knew all along that he has behaved like a boor--and done so with such frequency that accounts of his behavior were bound to come out--why didn't he issue this apology weeks ago, addressing the issue early to get it out of the way? And if Arnold thought it best to try to hide the issue instead, what else might he still be trying to hide?''When I am governor," Arnold continued, "I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women, a champion of the women."
We can all guess what that means. Since he has behaved like a serial predator, Arnold will attempt to placate women by supporting the whole radical, feminist agenda.
What effect will this morning's charges have on the recall? I couldn't say. But as of yesterday, polls showed Arnold ahead of Bustamante by 10 to 15 percent. If Arnold's lead now evaporates, permitting Bustamante to claim the governor's mansion, no one will be able to blame McClintock. Arnold will have brought it on us himself.
UPDATE: Now Hugh Hewett:
Readers of the report on Arnold Schwarzenegger in this morning�s Los Angeles Times should ask themselves when did editorial standards change at the paper. In January 2001, the Los Angeles Times censored a George Will column because it contained a reference to Clinton victim Juanita Broadderick. I discovered the censorship during a broadcast and the public outcry over it forced the editors at the Times to admit error:�George F. Will's column on Thursday's commentary page, as edited by the Times, omitted the author's statement that it is reasonable to believe that President Clinton 'was a rapist 15 years before becoming president.' Although some might dispute Will's interpretation of the facts, it is his opinion and should have been included in his column�.
Higher-ups in the newspaper had to reverse an earlier decision to delete the reference in the Will column and issued the explanation quoted above. Still, one has to wonder why the concern of the paper towards Clinton's reputation displayed in the original edit of the Will column, as well as in the handling of the TrooperGate story and its refusal to take seriously Kathleen Wiley�s allegations, has now sharply evolved into an aggressive stance on harassment allegations when they are leveled against a Republican. Bloggers with more time available to them than I may well be able to compare and contrast the Tammny Times� treatment of all these stories, but only a fool would trust the Los Angles Times to accurately and fairly report the story of this sort on a day this close to an election.
Lincoln club contends that McClintock promised to drop out. Quotable:
The Lincoln Club in its letter [to McClintock] said that McClintock in a June 13 private meeting told its board of directors that he would not act as a spoiler and asked him to honor the pledge.
Radio Free California -- John Fund's Political Diary. Quotable:
But talk radio didn't wait for the consultants to strategize; it gave the recall a life of its own. The flashpoint appears to have been a Jan. 20 interview with Shawn Steel, the outgoing chairman of the California Republican Party. Mr. Steel appeared on a morning talk show on San Francisco's KSFO hosted by Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan. Ms. Morgan pointed out how estimates of the state's budget deficit had nearly tripled since the election and asked him, "What can we do about Davis?" Mr. Steel paused for a moment and said "What about a recall?" The phone lines suddenly lit up, and Mr. Steel and Ms. Morgan had a movement behind them. Mr. Steel and others call Ms. Morgan "the mother of the recall."Within days two statewide recall drives were launched ...
MSNBC profile -- candidate Schwarzenegger captivates the voting public. Quotable:
Even before Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy, his advisers spent weeks during the summer meeting with focus groups of voters of all political persuasions to gauge their feelings for Davis and to see if the actor had political credibility. What they say they found was an across-the-board disdain for the governor � and an opportunity for the actor. �The anger was palpable,� one Schwarzenegger adviser said. �Even Democrats thought Davis was wishy-washy, and when he acted it was only in his self-interest. What they wanted far more than anything was leadership. There would be some laughing and giggling at first about Arnold becoming a candidate, but it wasn�t really a hard sell. It seemed like he could be a perfect contrast to Davis, in a climate when voters wanted change.�
Schwarzenegger has a 10-point plan for his first 100 days as governor. California Insider thinks Schwarzenegger will get much of what he wants:
�We are ready to take office,� [Schwarzenegger] said. �We are ready to act.�But can he succeed? I think he can. Just as Schwarzenegger has rewritten the rules of political campaigning, if he wins, he will be able to re-write the rules of governing. He would do this because he would have an ability that the Legislature does not have and that most governors before him have not been able to master: the ability to communicate directly with the people of California ...
But I think the dominant theme of a Schwarzenegger Administration would be follow-through. Consider the seemingly small matter of education finance reform. Everyone in Sacramento knows that the special programs that riddle the education budget are a joke, decades of pet projects built upon special deals on top of obsolete ideas. The Sacramento Bee published an amazing series earlier this year documenting all of this. Davis promised to overhaul it. But when he ran into opposition, which was inevitable, he caved. Somehow I think Schwarzenegger would follow through where Davis backed down. It�s just a gut feeling I have. Maybe I�m completely wrong. But I think I�m right.
More than anything I think it's this sense that Schwarzenegger will a force to be reckoned with in Sacramento which has brought him so much support, particularly among Republicans who want to see something or someone who can protect their pockets from the theives who populate the capital. This sense of force comes from many places -- the power of personal charisma, a track record of winning, raw celebrity, a highly positive attitude, great independent wealth, etc. and it is this sense of shear force and power that is captivating to voters -- both as political theater and as political promise. Schwarzenegger has the "I paid for this microphone" sense about him that signals to people that he's going to get things done. And he has resources of personality, celebrity, charm, etc. that will bring power to the table in Sacramento -- through fundraising ability, through raw persuasion, and through a fame-spawned personal link to the people that is close to unprecedented in statewide politics.
People sense that all this will make a difference -- and lets hope it will, because the problems of the state are very real.
Thanks to Roy Rivenburg, whose "RECALL MADNESS" column has give us top coverage of the debate and other unmatch recall reportage.
It's 40 - 32 Schwarzenegger over Bustamecha -- with Tomakaze stalled out somewhere over the Pacific at 15 in a brand spanking new LA Times poll. Quotable:
The shift in voter support toward Schwarzenegger is dramatic: Since the last Times Poll, he has made double-digit gains among Republicans, independents, whites, senior citizens, women and other major voting blocs. The September poll had Bustamante in the lead with 30 percent, followed by Schwarzenegger at 25 percent and McClintock at 18 percent. Bustamante had also led Schwarzenegger in an August poll, 35 percent to 22 percent.Times pollster Susan Pinkus said a televised debate last week, the only one that Schwarzenegger has attended, appeared to firm up support for the recall. Voters who were dissatisfied with Davis -- and with career politicians in general -- seem to have concluded that Schwarzenegger was a viable alternative.
See the details in PDF here.
The Road to Recall -- Schwarzenegger's "We're Not Gonna Take It" Tour:
Thursday, October 2nd
8:00a.m.
San Diego Convention Center, Hall A
San Diego, CA
11:30 a.m.
Orange County Fairgrounds
88 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA
Friday, October 3rd
7:30 a.m.
Los Angeles Arboretum
301 North Baldwin Avenue
Arcadia, CA
1:30 p.m.
The Marketplace
9000 Main Avenue
Bakersfield, CA
Saturday, October 4th
9:00 a.m.
P-R Farms
2917 East Shepherd
Fresno, CA
1:30 p.m.
10th Street Plaza
Modesto, CA
4:00 p.m.
Alameda County Fairgrounds
4501 Pleasanton Avenue
Pleasanton, CA
Sunday, October 5th
12 noon
California State Capitol
Downtown Sacramento
(South side of the Capitol, corner of 11th and N Street)
Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider to perform �We�re Not Gonna Take It� live Sunday in Sacramento at final stop in the Schwarzenegger California road trip. Song is named "official anthem" of the Schwarzenegger campaign.
Calblog, ace reporter, bringing you race to replace news, on the ground, with actual real people working in the Schwarzenegger campaign.
Schwarzenegger Road Trip:
The bus tour is to consist of six buses, each taking the name of a Schwarzenegger movie ... The candidate himself will ride on "Running Man" ... Schwarzenegger's VIP supporters will ride on "Total Recall" ... The four press buses will be called "Predator 1," "Predator 2," "Predator 3" ... and "True Lies."
Priorities & Frivolities has the new Chamber poll numbers and some analysis. Worth noting -- Schwarzenegger's big gains are coming from Republican voters.
Lefties rally around Bustamecha -- Camejo and the crazy lady step back to make room for Cruz -- seeRough & Tumble for the stories.
Does California Insider need an editor? -- the NY Times weighs in.
And here is the Bee itself on the issue -- including a quote from Weintraub on this tempest in a teapot. There's been lots of discussion of this in the blogosphere. If someone does the roundup, please send me a link.
The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed Schwarzenegger. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger offers the best hope, in our view, for fundamental reform of California's dysfunctional government.
Marci Hamilton -- free the law schools from the Leftist / Democrat party line:
During the mid-1990's, for example, Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School conducted a survey of law professors, and concluded that of the faculties of the top 100 law schools, 80% of law professors were Democrats (or leaned left) and only 13% were Republicans (or leaned right). There is no reason to believe these numbers have changed.
(via ProfessorBainbridge.com)
The very un-PC Debra Saunders:
For Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, there apparently is no such thing as illegal immigration .. When asked if he saw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants earlier this month, Bustamante told reporters, "I think that anybody who works and pays taxes ought to have a right to citizenship." U.S. citizenship is a right for non-Americans who break the law.In Bustamante World, illegal immigrants should pay no penalty whatsoever. Au contraire, they should be rewarded with documents, tuition discounts and health care.
As for Californians who believe in enforcing immigration law -- well, their beliefs get no respect. To call for any limits on immigration, or any enforcement of immigration law, is to be anti-immigrant. Read: racist.
It doesn't matter when Gabriel Gomez, a third-generation Mexican American, tells the L.A. Times that his trade as a plumber is suffering. "When you get illegals doing the job for half the price, you can't compete," Gomez explained, adding that if there were fewer immigrants, "it would give opportunities for those of us who really deserve them."
It doesn't matter when American inner-city children fall behind in reading as they share classrooms with students who are learning a new language ..
Bustamante is a good California Democrat. He is a happy booster of the party's new religion. It's a demanding orthodoxy. No facts matter. No limitations apply. No one is allowed to say that the positive benefits of immigration are diminished when there is too much immigration -- especially illegal immigration.
For their own good. Mickey Kaus charges the LA Times with shielding the public from the harsh realities of the world -- like facts about Gray Davis and the recall.
Rental housing owned by Bustamanate has failed three health and safety inspections in the last two years. And Bustamante has also likely taken unlawful write-offs on the government subsidized property he owns, tax accountants say.
The rental income Bustamante pockets comes mostly from federal taxpayers. Current tenants say they have no complaints with the candidate for governor.
Latinos, Asians & blacks prefer a color-blind society more than do whites. Quotable:
The poll .. found that 46 percent of Latinos, 42 percent of Asian-Americans and 41 percent of blacks support [Proposition 54] - while just 31 percent of whites favor it .. Prop. 54, written by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, would amend California's constitution to prohibit any government agency or school from classifying people by race or ethnicity - an effort he says is necessary to achieve a "colorblind society."
A significant proportion of the electoriate remains undecided. And it looks like many black voters have yet to pick a candidate in the race to replace. Quotable:
Only 17 percent of blacks support [Cruz Bustamante]. [While] Arnold Schwarzenegger's support .. [is] 7 percent among blacks.
In other words, less than one quarter have decided among the front runners. It's hard to imagine that this vote will break for McClintock or the crazy lady. Perhaps what we have here are potential recruits for the Feinstein "no on recall --- no on the race to replace" voting strategy. But I think most people will want their vote to count as much as it can in as many ways as it can.
I feel a draft. Calblog husband (!) gets the bandwagon rolling for the Dennis Miller for Senate draft movement.
Fresh Potatoes has the latest poll results from the Chamber of Commerce. Again, it's Schwarzenegger 2-1 in front of McClintock, and leading Bustmataxes by a few percentage points. All the post-debate polls are showing the same thing.
NY Times' Michael Lewis on the recall. This is a must read for recall junkies. Trust me.
Quotable:
''This isn't some right-wing conspiracy. It's valid criticism of leadership.'' -- Cruz Bustamante on the California recall movement.
The primary is over and the loser is Tom McClintock. McClintock's kamikaze plane -- and his campaign -- is stalled out. He hasn't moved in the polls in two weeks. And now, in the wake of the debate, Schwarzenegger has opened up a solid 2-1 lead over McClintock, according to internal polls being leaked today. On KFI David Dreier reported that the Schwarzenegger polsters have it 33 - Schwarzenegger, 27 - Bustamecha, and 15 - McClintock. The Cal Teachers Ass. has it 31-S, 26-B, and 15-M. On the recall, Davis hasn't moved past 40% in the polls in what seems like months. And nearly every voter in the state has made up his mind on the matter. There is going to be a new governor. Will it be Schwarzenegger or Bustamante? PrestoPundit reports, you decide.
A quarter million register to vote in the last month. I wonder how many failed to register -- and were thus disenfranchised -- by the three Democrat 9th Circuit court and its partisan attempt to halt the election with its laughably contrary to law ruling sometime back.
Millions watch California debate -- in Los Angeles more people watched the California race to replace debate than they did the Gore vs. Bush Presidential debate in 2000.
Miller's Time and Irish Lass report from the 3,000 strong Schwarzenegger debate party in Sacramento. Dennis Miller did the intro for Arnold and Maria. Sounds like a fun event.
Real Clear Politics analyses the polls and picks a winner in the race to replace. Quotable:
last night's debate - the only debate that will have any effect on the election - was a solid win for Schwarzenegger. It wasn't a home run by Arnold, but he came across as more than competent and his closing statement offered the voters of California something none of the other candidates did: the hope for leadership. All the media whining, post and pre-debate about how the voters need to here more specifics is just that: whining. Schwarzenegger seems to grasp that what the voters really want is change and leadership ..Bottom line: with 12 days to go Davis looks headed for defeat on Question 1. And unless there is some late momentum for McClintock, Schwarzenegger will outpoll Bustamante and become the next Governor.
(via Fresh Potatoes, who reaches a similar conclusion).
John Fund's California Diary examines the debate and the horse race. Quotable:
While Mr. McClintock's inclination is to stay the course, he is aware that he faces a Republican primary in his state Senate district in five months. Redistricting has given him about 40% new voters, many of them moderate Republicans in Santa Barbara County. Former Chamber of Commerce official Beth Rogers, a moderate, is already making noises about a primary challenge. In 2002, Ms. Rogers spent an impressive $1.8 million in a House race against incumbent Democrat Lois Capps.
Schwarzenegger on the Sean Hannity show. Quotable:
HANNITY: Well, there is a bit of controversy .. involving -- you had a number of heated exchanges with Arianna in particular last night. Well, it seemed like she came ready to take you on. You had one line in the debate, you thought you'd have a perfect part for her in "Terminator 4." Now, because of that comment -- you may not know this, so we're making news here -- she is urging the women of California not to support you, and she says this represents what you think of women. And she believes you were referring to the scene in "Terminator 3 (search)" that showed a female robot's head in the toilet. That's what she's saying to our friends in the media that are here with us today. What do you want to say to that?SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I don't know why she picked that scene. I have no idea. But the fact of the matter is it was a compliment, because in "Terminator," we always had powerful women. In the first "Terminator" and in the second one, it was Linda Hamilton who played always the powerful woman that succeeded .. And in "Terminator 3," the female terminator was the most powerful character in the whole movie. So, therefore, in "Terminator 4," it will continue the trend. So, it actually was a compliment. If she takes it the wrong way, it's not my fault.
Simon endorses Schwarzenegger. Quotable:
"I am here to endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is the right man to be governor of California."
Expect Darrell Issa and Peter Ueberroth to endorse in the next day or so. These three have been talking, and all have reached the same conclusion.
The trouble .. with Arianna is that there's this grave temptation to take her seriously because she takes herself so seriously. In reality she's a buffoon. The notion that she is driven by anything other than ambition, ego and appetite is simply unsustainable .. The fact that so many of her fans -- Franken, Maher etc -- think she's the real deal even as they claim the mantle of B.S. detectors simply reveals that those guys are frauds and buffoons too.
McClintock seems to be left with four scenarios:1) He doesn't drop out, Arnold win anyway, but doesn't return Tom's calls.
2) He doesn't drop out, and Cruz wins.
3) He drops out, and Cruz wins anyway.
4) He drops out, Arnold wins and does return his calls.Yes, yes, I know there's a fifth scenario where Tom wins, and rides a victory lap astride a flying pig around a snow-covered Capitol ..
Infinite Monkeys explains why some of these scenarios would be very bad for Tom McClintock.
Arnold blew it. We waited all this time for this? For some extremely rehearsed (yet still poorly executed) laugh lines, totally muddy specifics (except once or twice), and getting carved up by Arianna freakin' Huffington? ..
-- Matt Welch. And don't skip the comments section.
Bustamante continues to violate the law, defying a judicial order to halt his illegal campaign activities. This is just what we want. Another politician in charge of the police powers of the state and our tax money with absolutely no respect for the laws of California.
During the debate PrestoPundit had his hands full trying to calm a fussing baby disturbed by a fussing Arianna. Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt was living the life at the Balboa Bay Club & Resort enjoying the debate in style with a group of Orange County Republicans. Quotable:
There were many Tom McClintock supporters among the crowd, but it was strongly supportive of Arnold, a great sign of reality among the conservatives. Tom didn't lose any votes immediately, but he didn't gain any. His attacks on Pete Wilson were bad form, and suggest that he is still in this because of an old grudge. That didn't play well at all. He knows his stuff, but while Arnold and Cruz used the closing remarks to tell stories, Tom was still selling competence. It didn't work. His support, already drifting away, will continue moving towards AS. Tom needed the combination of a breakthrough, four home run performance coupled with a disaster for Arnold. He got neither.
American RealPolitik debate analysis snippet:
Peter Camejo, for a socialist, wasn't half as kooky as he normally is.
Outside the Beltway on the debate. Quotable:
Bustamonte: I'd say he won the debate, even though I disagree with him on most of the issues. He was calm, actually answered the questions, and thoughtful.
Priorities & Frivolities has a round-by-round evaluation of Schwarzenegger's fight debate performance. Quotable:
[McClintock] looked like Robin to [his] party rival's Batman
CNN on the debate. Quotable:
At a post-debate news conference, Schwarzenegger noted that he and McClintock agreed on many issues and said, "I think we could make a good team in Sacramento."
NY Times debate story. Quotable:
One of his own aides said before the debate that expectations were so low, that all Mr. Schwarzenegger had to do was string a few verbs and nouns together, toss out a statistic here and there and the whole evening would be considered a success.
Why didn't McClintock go after Schwarzenegger? Quotable:
McClintock told reporters afterward that he didn�t spend time attacking Schwarzenegger because �this election is bigger than any of the candidates. I�m in this election to talk about the future of California.�
Howard Owens on, well, you know what. Quotable:
Arnold Schwarzenegger may have done better than expected on demonstrating a knowledge of policy issues, but next to Tom McClintock and Pete Camejo, he still appeared fumbling and unsure of himself at times ..
Hindrocket blogs the recall debate from Minnesota. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger: Excellent performance. His basic pro-business theme came through well. He was strong, aggressive at times, sincere and knowledgeable. He came across as at least a credible candidate as any of the others. One oddity: He frequently looked at another participant rather than at the camera. Weird, given his acting experience.
Roger Simon has a few thoughts on the debate. Worth quoting:
Bustamante: as dull as ever. Sometimes you forget he's even there.Camejo: An earnest socialist in an era when everyone knows socialism has been tried and failed hundreds of times. Touching, really.
Arianna: one of the most bizarre human beings ever in American politics, the witch from the Wizard of Oz (and I don't mean Glenda!). Possibly a sociopath.
Slings and Arrows on Schwarzenegger and the debate:
Decent, but not excellent performance. He spent much too much time bantering with Arrianna. His comment about her having a part in Terminator IV was knumb-headed at best, very damaging at worst. He had a couple of bright spots, namely the "three strikes" comment and accusing the politicians of having a "tax and spend addiction". He stayed on point for most of the debate. He was weak on the "color-blind" question, but very strong on making "Kolie-vornia" a business friendly state.
Find more here, including real-time question-by-question blogging of the debate at it happened.
California Insider's take on the debate -- no clear winners. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger said this would be the "Super Bowl" of debates, but his performance was more apt for a pre-season game. He didn't exactly embarrass himself, but neither did he score any touchdowns. It's possible his performance will play better with the casual viewer than a junkie like me.
Mickey�Kaus on the debate:
Arnold: Not too bullying or too vague ... but it was close! Did well enough to win.
Cruz: Mr. Blobby. Condescending, accomodating, pleasant, and once again Smarter Than Expected. But does he seem like a guy who likes to say "no"? Seems more like the guy who announces arrivals and departures at an Amtrak station. (Great voice!)
Arianna: If she'd been less shrill and grating when attacking Schwarzenegger, it would have helped ... Schwarzenegger! (Success for Arianna hurts Bustamante, by splitting the left vote). A useful presence who wore thin. And let me get it straight: The California economy is doing fine and it's all George Bush's fault!
McClintock: Solid presentation could make him a national figure. (Gee, why do you think he stayed in the race?) The only candidate who even tried to fully answer the immigration question. Briefly seemed to go into mantra-chanting trance.
Camejo: One-note johnny on tax distribution, but a walking case for proportional representation.
"[She] was galling. She was rude, dense, annoying, obnoxious, thoroughly unclever and unappealing in every way .. " -- Jonah Goldberg on the crazy lady.
"I think all the candidates did fine. I tend to agree with the conventional wisom that Schwarzenegger did as well as he needed to do .. " read more at fresh potatoes.
"Arnold doesn't share our values." -- Bustamante's double-meaning negative ad attacking Schwarzenegger. Aren't those high paid advertising folks clever?
Here is the AP's debate story. Quotable:
The tension between the two peaked when Schwarzenegger began to cut Huffington off and she replied: "This is the way you treat women, we know that. But not now."Statham penalized Huffington and gave Schwarzenegger a chance to reply, providing another opening for one of his frequent movie references.
"I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," he said to Huffington, as the audience laughed.
And it looks like this part of the post-debate story was pre-written before the debate:
Schwarzenegger set high expectations for his own performance by calling the forum "the Super Bowl of debates," and his rivals in the Oct. 7 recall election were expected to try and challenge him or trip him up."This is the opening scene of the third act of the campaign, and it's a referendum on Arnold," said Republican strategist Allan Hoffenblum.
"He needs to come across as competent, that he has command of public policy issues and that he appears qualified to be governor. If he does all that, he'll win."
Schwarzenegger's well paid staff continues to make junior high mistakes -- didn't anybody tell Arnold to look into the camera, and not away to the moderator? Didn't anyone catch this in debate practice? And why didn't Schwarzenegger's people insist that the candidates stand? Candidates sitting are always have significantly less stature than do candidates who stand. The sitting thing was a clear disadvantage for Schwarzenegger. And in my judgment the crazy lady simply should not have been allowed on the stage. She is not running for governor, she is out promoting her phony baloney career as a "political commentator". She simply didn't belong ,and the moderator utterly failed to keep her on the topic on California, rather than Iraq or George Bush or god knows what she was racing on about -- or was that the crazy man talking about Iraq? Who knows.
McClintock proved he would make a great governor -- of Arizona. I wish he'd make a great governor of California, but I'm convinced California is too big, too left, too media driven and too far lost for that. Bustamante was impressive in a quiet but confident way -- well measured and clearly experienced in the art of communicating with all sorts of different folks. Schwarzenegger stood out as the debate amateur here -- I don't know if this is such a bad thing, but I do know that this would not have happened if Schwarzenegger had allowed himself to put a couple of these under his belt across the course of the campaign. I've suggested before that the Reagan '66 way would have been Schwarzenegger's best course -- talk everyone's head off and end the perception problem which has it that Schwarzenegger is not smart enough or well informed enough to be governor. This debate format and Schwarzenegger's performance alone was not enough to do that. A damn shame that so many expectations were forced onto this one debate.
UPDATE: Don't forget to check out the comments section below.
Interocitor's mind is now made up -- he's voting McClintock. His 5th quarter advice for Arnold -- never argue with an idiot.
Economics 101 from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the WSJ:
Our state will prosper again when we commit ourselves in California to "Free to Choose" economics. This means removing, one by one, the innumerable impediments to growth--excessive taxes, regulations, and deficit-spending.
UPDATE: John Fund on the political power of the tribes -- and their new McClintock strategy to elect Crux Boostyourtaxes governor of California.
I know he had a weak case, but did anybody else conclude that Larry Tribe's arguments simply sucked? He falsesly talked of "dimpled" chads being an issue in California -- when they simply are not. He talked as if what people falsely believed -- not what was actually true -- should be the controlling consideration in the case. And his argument seemed (irony of ironies) to come down to a consideration of public confidence in elections -- when the three member court panel decision was crushing public confidence in the judiciary as well as in the election process .. and an en blanc decision upholding that decision would only do far deeper damage to public confidence in the courts and the system. Especially when you consider that the whole decision rested on a bogus study, and Orwellian falsehoods build into the language of ballot "errors" (chosen non-votes, etc.) and "error" rate statistics that where not even final outcome rates. And even these statistics were grossly distorted and misused by the ACLU people. I'm familiar with Tribe's constitutional textbook -- and I'm also very familiar with Tribe's second life as an Alan Dershowitz style partisan advocate who identifies the political result he's after first, and then does whatever it takes to rationalize that result as a matter of "law". I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. And to my mind it's all of a piece. Leftist jurisprudence is by the nature of the case unprincipled -- it is expediency on moralistic stilts, and it is the enemy of principled liberalism, in my ever so humble opinion. And none of this denies that Tribe knows a lot of case law, and has a good memory, and knows how to put a persuasive argument together. So does Dershowitz, and that doesn't raise my respect for Dershowitz as an advocate one bit.
At a press conference afterwards Tribe said the Ninth circuit judges where "very, very on today". Unfortunately, Tribe was not even close.
On John and Ken today Darrell Issa as much as said that come Monday morning he will endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor .. and he will use all of the resources of Recall California ensure that Schwarzenegger wins -- and Tom McClintock and Cruz Bustamante lose.
Schwarzenegger takes on the tribes! Firing a shot across the bow of Tom McClintock .. and directly into the deck of Cruzship Bustamante, Schwarzenegger tonight launched TV spots in LA attacking the corruption of California politics by wads and wads of Indian gaming cash -- $120,000,000 worth. And Schwarzenegger calls for California to do what other states do -- tax a bit of those Indian gaming profits to help out California. Watch the ad here. Schwarzenegger promises to clean up the corrupting influence of Indian gaming money in California politics -- and when he says it, you believe he's going to do it. So now we know why Arnold refused to take the no new taxes pledge ...
Political junkies have got to love this. Schwarzenegger is playing to win, and playing the game as hard as it gets. This is like watching Michael Jordan at the end of the 4th quarter -- or Ronald Reagan when the pressure was on. Politics ain't beanbag, and Schwarzenegger seems in his gut to know it. Got to love it.
UPDATE: California Insider has more.
Larry Solum has extensive excerpts from the Ninth Circuit California election decision and lots of good links. Check it out.
The New Yorker's Hertzberg does a profile of Schwarzenegger and the California recall. Targorda has a spot-on critique of Hertzberg's political analysis.
Tagorda has links to video tape of the C-SPAN broadcast on the 9th circuit hearing on the California recall election case.
The Ninth Circuit will issue its recall ruling this morning (Tuesday). The best coverage continues to be How Appealing. Check out all the good links and interesting commentary.
The Clinton dominated Civil Rights Commission jumps with two feet into the recall fiasco -- but based on what? Well, it looks like no facts and false analogies to Florida's screwed up equipment and absense of standards. I.e. it's pure politics and pure spin from another doggedly partisan Clinton appointed panel. Worth noting -- once again an uninformed opinion is based on the false notion of "errors" -- when chosen non-votes and chosen multi-votes are the primary sources of the "errors" generated by the court cited study.
Former sports writer and aging baby boom lefty George Skelton fact checks the Ninth circuit. Now let's fact check the former sports writer -- because he gets a few facts wrong himself.
Fact #1 -- the court has a duty to follow the law, and it has absolutely no right to impose its own preferenced political outcomes on the rest of us.
Fact #2 -- The mislabeled "errors" cited by the court to rationalize its decision consists of people choosing not to select a candidate in some races, or, sometimes, choosing more than one candidate for office. A voting system can't be responsible for the voting choices of an individual any more than it can be responsible for a person choosing to show up or not on voting day. Or is Skelton proposing forced voting, something like the system used by totalitarian Lefties around the world?
Fact 3# -- The Constitution specifies that local counties run elections and choose their ballot system -- i.e. the Constitution specifies that different locations have the right to locally selected ballot equipment.
Fact #4 -- What matters for law is what the facts are, not what a mistaken court chooses (falsely) to believe.
So the following statement by Skelton is completely erroneous -- as a matter of fact, logic, and law:
The court had every right � indeed a duty � to postpone the election if it believed the obsolete punch-card machines would cause 44% of the California electorate to cast ballots that have a significantly lesser chance of being counted than the other 56%.
And one more civics lesson for George. It's a falsehood -- and a slander -- to call those who are defending the law against this court "anarchists". Anarchists are those who are out to tear apart the law. Something like this court shred the plainly written Constitution of the State of California. Leftist on the courts have been out to shred the law and impose their own preferences for generations (ever heard of Bill Douglass?). They aren't anarchists, but they are philosophical blood relatives, a fact they might have skipped at sportswriter school.
How Appealing has a Ninth Circuit recall election case preview here. Check his website for direct C-SPAN links and live coverage of the hearing at it is televised Monday, 1 pm Pacific.
History / PoliSci professor and self-described partisan Democrat (are there any other kind) Jack Rakove says that California is utterly unMadisonian. Actually California is a Madisonian nightmare -- the very model of the massive failure of Madison's "solution" to faction outlined in Federalist no. 10. And I'm talking about the pre-Progressive features of the California system. The Progressive reforms of recall and initiative have been the the only things which have saved the state from utter ruin as the narrow interested eat the baby of the general interest alive in the Madisonian state legislature. I admire Madison perhaps more than most -- but he utterly failed to come up with Constitutional solutions to the Madisonian problem of "faction". The faction driven legislature is killing the taxpayer and business in the interest of the trial lawyers, the government unions, and the countless spending lobbies and dependency constituencies. This is Madisonian government run amuck -- and the Progressives at least gave us some effective tools for saving the people and the common good from the corruption of the Madisonian logrolling and hand-greasing process of government by a legislature unbound by law, principle or simple decency. The Madisonian system has created Illiberal Democracy and The End of Liberalism -- taking us on The Road to Serfdom.
Mickey Kaus -- favoring Schwarzenegger for Governor. An LA Times profile. Quotable:
Only a few years ago, Kaus went to the 30th reunion of his Beverly Hills High class. A classmate asked him what he was doing. "I have a Web site," Kaus said. "My daughter does too," the classmate said.
Kaus on Schwarzenegger:
What's Arnold got that Cruz doesn't? Kaus answers with Spanish slang for "guts." He is drawn to Schwarzenegger as a fiscal conservative who is liberal on many social issues. "I'd like a governor who can cut spending by telling lobbyists, including union lobbyists and lawyers, 'no.' Schwarzenegger has at least the potential to do that � and thanks to the Constitution we don't have to worry much about him using the state as a springboard to becoming president." He dismisses Bustamante as a panderer lacking the courage to condemn illegal immigration from Mexico. Yet when you ask Kaus what his two Schwarzenegger scoops say about his man, he says: "The commonality is that one of his character flaws is that he tends to see people as marks, people he can con with various scams ... and that could be tied together with his reputation as somebody who bullies people below the line on the movie set. It's troubling. For all Schwarzenegger's flaws, I still tend to think I would vote for him. [But] I am not so pro-him that I don't want all the dirt to come out."
And Kaus promises that he'll never stop blogging -- but may cut back from 3 hours a day -- when it stops be so much fun.
The SacBee has a Schwarzenegger profile. Memo to Laura Mecoy and the SacBee editors: there weren't any Nixon-Humphrey Presidential debates in 1968.
Like many aliens in America, Schwarzenegger didn't much bother about the details of state and federal law.
Here is the archive of the Election Law email list for the month of September -- full of Bush v. Gore and Ninth Circuit v. California Voters posting from legal experts. Here is an example of the quality of the posts:
From: Bauer, BobDan asks a good question: why so little analysis on the list of the substantive merits of the claim? I have detected one reason among opponents of the recall (and I am one of those who detest this recall): genuine uneasiness over the question of whether the merits had much to do with the panel's decision.
The dilemma for those opposed to the recall, who typically count themselves among the severe critics of Bush v. Gore, is that 1) the panel's interpretation of the case, as it applies in California, is very difficult to defend; and 2) in any event, those who dislike Bush v. Gore are hardly comfortable with resurrecting it for any purpose as legitimate precedent of broad application. And to the extent that the panel was--to put it politely--deciding the case on the political facts and not the substantive law, this too places Bush v. Gore critics in an awkward position, since it is precisely this result orientation that many attribute to the Supremes.
These are problems that will not go away: as constitutional and statutory laws controlling the political process become ever more elaborate, the specialists will debate theory while the courts will use the theoretical scaffolding to extend judicial dominion over the democratic process-- ruling on political "facts" in accordance with raw political preferences.
I am not suggesting that the panel thought this was what it was doing, but even those sympathetic to result suspect that this more than anything else was at work in the decision.
It for this reason that I was struck by Rick Hasen's defense of the use of BusH v. Gore--a defense both commendably candid and also troubling. He writes:
"[w]hen the Supreme Court creates a wholly new equal protection standard that does not stem from broad social consensus (as it has in cases like Reynolds, Shaw v. Reno, and Bush v. Gore), it should do so initially using a murky standard. That allows lower courts to experiment with the contours of the new equal protection right allowing the Supreme Court to gain valuable
information about how to ultimately shape the new right. That is how to read the current dispute over Bush v. Gore. This is an entirely good thing."It is?? A Supreme Court claimed by many to be acting on political preferences creates a new equal protection standard that is conceded to be
opaque but somehow suited to experimentation by lower courts (many of which are being stacked with other judges with, er, political interests). Some would not sleep all that comfortably when confronted with this prospect. In any event, setting aside political suspicions, it will trouble anyone who fears the extent to which courts are being invited to design political processes and settle political disputes.
Terry Eastland on the Ninth Circuit court. Quotable:
.. the judges represented what they were doing as a straightforward application of Bush v. Gore, an equal protection case. Indeed, for Pregerson, Thomas, and Paez, Shelley was Bush v. Gore all over again. Our case, they said, presents "almost precisely the same issue as the [Supreme] Court considered in Bush," that issue being "whether unequal methods of counting votes among counties constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."But, as the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the issue before it wasn't "whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections" but "whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates" the equal protection clause. Indeed, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots varied "not only from county to county, but within a single county from one recount team to another." A hand recount so lacking in standards could easily result in partisan discrimination, with standards bent this way or that so as to help favored and hurt disfavored candidates. That's what concerned the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ..
Another reporter has his California punch card ballot facts all wrong -- this times its NY Times reporter John Broder. Someone should do a fisking -- and then please send me the link!
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh kicks things off.
"You know who's on the panel, right? Do you think it's going to have much of a chance of surviving? I wouldn't bet on it." -- Judge Harry Pregerson.
UPDATE: This another instance of the 79 year old Judge behaving like a 2 year old -- or a teenager -- defying the rules, as How Appealing explains:
It is extraordinarily unusual for a judge to speak to the press about the merits of a matter currently pending before his court. Indeed, whichever party loses before the eleven-judge en banc panel could ask for rehearing en banc before all twenty-three non-recused judges on the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Pregerson is in that group. On the other hand, this is not the first time that Judge Pregerson has behaved in a manner quite different from the way that every other federal appellate judge would behave, as my Los Angeles Times op-ed published on June 1, 2003 explains.Update: Don't simply take my word for it -- this document posted on the Ninth Circuit's own Web site states that "Due to codes of ethics restrictions, judges are unable to discuss the merits of the case."
It's time for this old goat to put himself out to pasture -- and he can spend his last cantankerous years defying the rules of The Home.
UPDATE II: Eugene Volokh weighs in.
Good LA Times article giving the lowdown on the members of the 11 member Ninth Circuit recall election panel.
Eugene Volokh believes that the 11 member 9th circuit panel will be forced to consider not only the Equal Protection argument ruled on by the 3 member panel, but also the Voting Rights Act argument the 3 member panel did not rule on. Read his argument here.
UPDATE: Comments section discusses this issue further.
Al Gore's attorney will argue the ACLU case in 9th Circuit Lefties v. The Voters of California -- the court decision which halted the California recall election while voting was in progress. Al Gore's attorney? That would be reliable Democrat and Leftie Laurence Tribe, of course.
SoCalLawBlog actually thinks through the logic of the 9th circuit decision in the case of 9th Circuit Morons v. Every Sensible Adult in California, and comes to a startling conclusion:
I read the 3-judge panel decision as saying the following: Bush v. Gore held that differing standards between a state's counties as to how similarly marked ballots would be counted is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, it must be violation of the Equal Protection Clause if counties use different voting mechanisms if it can be shown that the mechanisms differ in their error rate of vote tabulations. Otherwise, counties using mechanisms with higher error rates would risk their voters being disenfranchised in not having their votes count. Thus the only real remedy is to have uniform voting mechanisms throughout the entire state.It seems to me that absentee votes provide the Achilles' heel for this line of reasoning.
First off, a delay in the California election would require that those who have already voted via absentee ballot have their votes thrown out. Therefore, even if you accept the court's reasoning, you are forcing actual voter disenfranchisement in order to prevent a mere potential disenfranchisement. This forces the court's decision to collapse under the weight of its own logic.
Secondly, it seems to me that the decision would likely force the end of absentee voting in all future elections.
Let me confess up front that I have never voted via absentee ballot, so I don't know for sure how the process works. But what is clear is that whoever votes on an absentee ballot would have to use the same voting system as those casting votes in the state on election day. Would California servicemen overseas have to have access to a touch-screen voting machine in order to vote? How likely is that going to happen? If they merely used a punch-card ballot or hand-written ballot, then that would violate the provisions of the court's decision if I am reading it correctly. The only way to correct the disparity would be to get rid of absentee voting altogether.
I have only one thing to add -- Bush v. Gore did not hold that differing standards of ballot evaluation between different state counties would be counted is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The decision as I understand it was about differing standard's of ballot evalutation within the same county. Of course, as everyone knows, California has a uniform standard across the state for evaluation punch ballots -- and today on KFI the LA County registrar said that the county has never had even a single ballot evaluation problem in all of the years she's worked as County registrar. And no dimpled chads ever. The LA County equipment simply isn't in the poor condition of the Florida equipment.
Conny McCormack also said today that the claims of the ACLU regarding punch balloting -- claims grounding the 9th circuit decision -- were "falactious" and "utterly erroneous". She said there were no Florida style problems with the punch ballot in California -- none.
She also said that the 9th circuit decision moving the recall election to the primary election of March 2004 would likely to cause massive chaos at the the voting place, and most likely would create a split ballot system deeply confusing to voters, who would also face the confusion of using a new balloting system for the very first time.
McCormacks' amicus brief to the court is here (pdf)
Cal Insider scoop -- Ted Costa demands the bulk of Appellees' argument time in 9th Circuit Lefties v. the People due to the fact the Sec. of State Kevin Shelley has abandoned every substantive legal and factual argument against the decision, and will argue only a very narrow procedural question. Unbelievable.
UPDATE: The story is reported in The Recorder. Costa's attorney, Charles Diamond of t O'Melveny & Myers, contends that Sec. of State Shelley has been "relegating to asides or ignoring altogether the important constitutional and public policy issues the appeal raises."
UPDATE II: In How Appealing's judgment, "Costa has presented persuasive reasons why his lawyers should have time to address the en banc court."
UPDATE III: "It's raw politics" said [Chapman law professor] John Eastman .. "I would say it's a less-than-vigorous defense." -- Eastman on Sec. of State Shelley and his failure to defend the use of punchcards, quoted in The Recorder article.
UPDATE IV: Xrlq have more thought on Shelley and the 9th circuit.
Krugman returns from a vacation in France A Guardian profile of America's most paranoid political commentator. Quotable:
"The first three pages of Kissinger's book sent chills down my spine," Krugman writes of A World Restored, the 1957 tome by the man who would later become the unacceptable face of cynical realpolitik. Kissinger, using Napoleon as a case study - but also, Krugman believes, implicitly addressing the rise of fascism in the 1930s - describes what happens when a stable political system is confronted with a "revolutionary power": a radical group that rejects the legitimacy of the system itself. This, Krugman believes, is precisely the situation in the US today ..
Michael Moore, eat your heart out. What is really needed at this point is a non-leftist Richard Hofstadter to expose the off-the-deep-end mental illness which become the mainstream of today's American Left. Can you say "out of touch with reality"?
How Appealing reports that C-SPAN will televise Monday's 9th circuit hearing on Ninth Circuit Crazies v. Democracy and Common Sense -- the California recall case.
How Appealing also has insider assessments of the Ninth Circuit panel draw from a pair of former Ninth circuit clerks. Not to be missed.
Right on the Left Beach google searches quick profiles of the 11 members of the Ninth circuit panel reconsidering Ninth Circuit Lefties v. Democracy, 03-56498, including the following (edited) information:
Panel breakdown -- Clinton: 7, Reagan: 2, Bush I: 1, Carter: 1.
Chief Judge Schroeder: Carter appointee.
Judge Kozinski: Reagan appointee.
Judge O'Scannlain: Reagan appointee.
Judge Kleinfeld: Bush I appointee.
Judge Tasihima: Clinton appointee.
Judge Silverman: Clinton appointee.
Judge Graber: Clinton appointee.
Judge McKeown: Clinton appointee.
Judge Gould: Clinton appointee.
Judge Tallman: Clinton appointee.
Judge Rawlinson: Clinton appointee.
Get more details here
Great news for those who believe in democracty and the rule of law from How Appealing:
How can I say that the eleven-judge en banc panel that will rehear the California recall election case is "conservative" when eight of the judges were nominated by Democratic Presidents? Two points. First, I'm using the term "conservative" relative to the composition of the typical en banc panel one sees from the Ninth Circuit. Second, three of the court's smartest and most conservative judges are on the panel, while none of the leading liberal voices from the court are on the panel. Also, Judge Tallman, while a Clinton nominee, was actually selected by a Republican Senator as part of a deal to get someone else's nomination approved. Judge Rawlinson, also a Clinton nominee, regularly votes with the Ninth Circuit's more conservative judges. And Judges Silverman, Graber, McKeown, and Gould are viewed as moderates by and large. [Update: A reporter who regularly covers the Ninth Circuit has emailed to say that Judges Silverman and Gould are "conservative-moderate" and that "the recall proponents just hit a home run."]Perhaps Judge Kozinski sums it up best in this paragraph from an article that appeared in USA Today back in February 2003:
Four of President Clinton's 14 appointees to the 9th Circuit have turned out to be "really excellent, conservative jurists," says Kozinski, who was appointed by President Reagan, a Republican. After Congress expanded the court by 10 seats in 1978 and President Carter, a Democrat, filled them, "the court was dominated by liberals," Kozinski says. "But now it's really quite balanced. Any notion that there is a conservative wing or a liberal wing or a consensus or an embattled minority on one side, I think is total hokum."
Famed (true) liberal jurist and Hayek fan Alex Kozinski is on the 11 member panel set to reconsider the 9th circuit's decision to short-circuit an ongoing election in California. Other members include Mary Schroeder, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Andrew Kleinfeld, A. Wallace Tashima, Barry Silverman, Susan Graber, Margaret McKeown, Ronald Gould, Richard Tallman and Johnnie Rawlinson. Reported by the Chronicle.
New 11 member 9th circuit panel will meet Monday to reconsider that court's rogue action halting a democratic election in California on grounds lying outside of the law -- a decision which local voting officials say is creating electorial chaos and promises to disenfranchize hundreds of thousands across the state.
When the law is determined by one judge's personal perception of "the conscience of the nation" rather than the plainly worded rule of law. Guess who the judge might be?
Inspired by the legacy of George Custer, Davy Crockett and the Kamikazes in the Pacific, Peter Robinson digs in for finally combat in his debate with Hugh Hewitt.
"Every single election will no longer be decided in the ballot box, but in the courtroom, if this decision stands." -- John Eastman, law professor at Chapman College in Orange County, speaking about the 9th circuits decision to halt the recall election in California as voting took place around the state.
In the last two years 11 Ninth Circuit decisions have been reverved by the Supreme Court in unanimous decisions and there have been three summary reversals without opposition. Quotable:
"if a court starts getting unanimous reversals or summary reversals in very many cases, that ought to raise a red flag" -- Michael Ramsey, professor of law at the U. San Diego School of Law
9th Circuit decision blogger Rick Hasen interviewed. Worth noting -- Hasen thinks punch balloting would be hunkydory if only everyone in the state was forced to use that same system -- even when this means that tens of thousands of voters would be "disenfranched" according to the Berkeley professors count of voting "errors" (including voters who intentionally chose not to cast a vote in particular races). So disenfranchising the actual votes of actual individuals is perfectly ok in Hasen's world, just don't disenfranchize abstract classes of voters when voters are considered not a living breathing individuals, but as mere representations of their racial identify as defined the state -- and the "scientific" university professors. Sidenote -- Hasen seems oblivious to the fact that the Supreme Court has said that the 200+ year American tradition of allowing each local county to its own voting machinary is the perfectly Constitutional law of the land. Bush v. Gore didn't touch that fact -- it affirmed it.
Nearly 5,000 people have signed up for Join Arnold MeetUp Day scheduled Saturday, Sep 27 at various locations around the state. Orange County is the top meetup location, with over 600 signed up for the event. Click on the link to see who is supporting Schwarzenegger and why.
Jill Stewart's turkey watch:
AB 1245, by John Laird. Prevents draft ballot measures from first going to the Attorney General, who currently cleans up illegal language before public distribution. Instead, measures will go on a website so we see every screw-up. The intent is to create chaos around measures so they'll fail at the polls. Laird should be flogged in public for this sneak attack on our initiative process. Too bad we don't do that anymore.AB 1309, by Jackie Goldberg. After a school district tears down houses to build a school, this allows a district to go tear down somebody else's house, somewhere else, to put up housing for those originally displaced. The intent is to make white suburbanites, whom Goldberg detests, suffer instead of brown urbanites. Watch for lawsuits by broad-sided homeowners.
AB 587, by Mark Ridley-Thomas. A box asking your skin color will now go on voter registration forms. It's voluntary---but expect a move next to make it required. Davis signed this creepy law Wednesday.
AB 1742. If your taxman has more than100 clients, he now must send your return in via Internet. Your privacy is at risk.
SB 796, by Joseph Dunn. Allows workers to seek fines of $200 each from firms who commit tiny labor violations. California's labor code is thicker than a Manhattan phone book. One code specifies a font size employee notices must be posted in. So 50 employees can now get $10,000 over improper fonts. More ice for our business climate. Dunn's special interest servicing of lawyers and unions is shameless.
SB 892, by Kevin Murray. Withholds funds from schools with dirty bathrooms. More anti-reform. Instead of giving principals the power to decide how to use money---such as on cleaning bathrooms---Sacramento has emasculated principals. Now, dopes like the oafish Murray ensure that struggling schools are further punished. Brilliant.
AB 231, by Darrell Steinberg. "Reforms" the food stamp program, which required that nobody own a fancy car if taxpayers were buying their food. Up to now, car value was capped at $4,650. But now? Now, you can own a Rolls, and your household can own as many luxury cars as it wishes. Also, no more face-to-face interviews to qualify. Just give a buzz. Who's this for---busy, jobless billionaires? If it's really so poor workers can keep reliable cars, why wasn't a new cap set of $15,000? Did I mention that California's food stamp program is rife with fraud, and in particular is being targeted by con artists who are not poor?
Oh, and she rips the California press. I left out the fun stuff. Go read it.
On KFI today Tom McClintock said that he can't do anything about Indian Tribes spending millions in independent expenditures to advance his campaign for governor -- in fact, he can't even talk to them about it. And, by the way McClintock says, they have every reason to support him -- not because these expenditures will insure the election of their good friend Cruz Boostyourtaxes, but because McClintock has on principle opposed any state regulation of Indian lands and activities. I'm guessing this is not the first thing on their minds, however. What we're seeing instead is the Davis strategy from the Republican primary of 2002. Are you disgusted with California politics yet?
Some commentators are pointing to the initial reluctance of the Supremes to get involved in the Florida mess in 2000 and the Court's coimplete refusal to inject itself into the New Jersey U.S. Senate dust-up last year as evidence that the Court will not distrub the Ninth Circuit's result, no matter what it is.I think this reasoning underestimates the wildly radical nature of Monday's decision. Bush v. Gore was a case of first impression on how ballots should be recounted in a Presidential election after the polls had closed. Monday's ruling takes that very narrow case --decided reluctantly and under extraordinary pressure, and then only following widely recognized irresponsibility by the Florida Supreme Court-- and, using Dr. Frankenstein technique, changes it into a license for federal judges to assume control over all state elections in the future. The current Supreme Court is best known for resurrecting protections for states against federal power, and the authors of Bush v. Gore know how carefully they wrote the opinions in that dispute in order to prevent just this sort of piracy. I don't believe the justices will stand by and see three out-of-control partisans loot and pillage constitutional tradition because they are afraid that Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd might write something nasty in the New York Times or that Joe Conason will issue another unread book. Nobdoy watches Capitol Gang anymore anyway, so why care what Al Hunt and Margaret Carlson say?
In other words, the Supreme Court will act. Justice Jackson in his dissent in Korematsu warned of decisions that lay around "like loaded pistols" on the desk. Such is Monday's decision. If the Ninth Circuit does not do the necessary clean-up, I expect the Supreme Court will.
Some interesting ideas today from Arnold Schwarzenegger. I found these of particular interest:
Classifying as public records all internal e-mails and draft documents throughout state government, including the state Legislature. The governor's calendar would also be considered a public document.Campaigning for an initiative that would apply open-government requirements to the state Legislature.
Right now nobody even knows what laws the legislature has passed in the last session -- an unbelievable scandal which hasn't gotten much press.
SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., the company that bankrolled the Berkeley study used as the justification for the Ninth Circuit's recall decision gave $2,000 to help re-elect Gray Davis in 2002.
Shriver's campaign niche -- women owned businesses. A Shriver friend on the protesters at Shriver events:
"She's a Democrat. She's OK with yelling and screaming union people.""
KFI Reporter Eric Leonard has dug into the arguments the ACLU used in its presentation that persuaded the court to postpone the recall election. Here is what he found .. The Research used by the ACLU in its case to stop the recall may have some problems. KFI news has learned the study that supposedly revealed problems with punchcard voting had been funded by a company selling electronic voting machines. State records also reveal while the ACLU claims minority voters make more mistakes with punchcards, California's highest recorded voting error rates were in predominantly-white counties ..
Quotable Schwarzenegger:
Growing up, I saw communism with my own eyes. When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. In 1956, the Soviet tanks crushed the uprising next door in Hungary. Hungarian people by the thousands fled across the border into Austria. I saw what communism did to those people. When I was nine, I helped my father in the refugee camps. I ladled soup out to the children. Then I saw the socialist country that Austria became when the Soviets left. Even when I was young, I knew America was the place for me* * * *
Reporters keep asking how I am going to run things in Sacramento, so let me tell you a story that explains how I intend to govern. One day I went to visit a friend who was a sculptor. I went into his studio and saw all of the great work he has done. Sculptures of JFK, LBJ and Truman. All terrific works of art�and all Democrats. Well . . . I couldn't let that be. So I commissioned a bust of the Great Communicator � and it sits today in the Reagan Library. I have a copy of that sculpture of the President in my office, so every time I look up from my desk I see Ronald Reagan. And when I go to Sacramento, that bust is going with me. It's going to remind me of the impact one individual can have. The impact of the Reagan revolution was profound. The demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall changed the world. My fellow Californians, drawing upon Ronald Reagan's inspiration and example, we will change California. That is the kind of governor I intend to be.
Larry Tribe, just another a&$-talking political hack with tenure? Larry Sterling does a fisking:
Laurence Tribe�s assertion of �palpable hypocrisy� concerning the Ninth Circuit Panel�s awful conduct would be down right laughable if this was not such a serious matter. | A leftist cabal, of which Tribe is a charter member, has hijacked the California constitution. | Tribe�s analysis is wrong both on both the facts and the law: pretty sorry for a Harvard Law prof. | First, the facts: There are no systems errors in the punch card or the mark-sense systems. The Registrars of voters from both San Diego and Los Angeles Counties and others have said so in depositions that were never read by the judge and in recent press coverage. No registrar was called to testify and they are the ones that run the elections, not Berkeley Profs. | Both of these systems, far from being outdated, are mature, efficient, and effective technology. They have been used millions of times by millions of people. | The only people who state otherwise are the salesmen for Diebold and other touch-screen technologies. (A Boolean search of the Internet will disclose substantial controversies over the dependability of the touch-screen technology.) | All such assertions by Tribe or anyone else are simply blatant lies. | The evidence concerning the asserted error rates should have been excluded as �junk science� under The Federal Rules of Evidence. | The fact that the defendants did not object makes it appear that these were collusive suits between the ACLU and friendly office holders that had political conflicts of interest. | The so-called �error rate� attributed to these systems are a combination of so-called �overvoting� and �undervoting.� | So-called �overvoting� is not an error in the systems; it is an error by the voter. | It means the voter punched two holes in one race. In San Diego County, Registrar Sally McPherson has stated publicly and repeatedly that such mistakes by voters constitute just about one third of one percent of the unrecorded votes. | The much larger element of the putative �error rate� is �undervoting.� Undervoting is registrar lingo for the notion that some voters decide to simply not vote in some races. In political circles, this is known as the �voter drop-off rate.� There are simply many voters that pick and choose which races they feel comfortable voting in. | �Undervoting� is not a systems error and indeed not an error at all. The decision to vote or not to vote is the sole right of the voter. Any discussion about or assertion that undervoting is an error should be dropped from the debate. Automated systems will not make people vote. | He was also wrong on the law: The issue in Florida was that different counties had different standards for evaluating disputed ballots. California always had a statewide standard for evaluating disputed ballots. | There will always be some minor disparity in the vote recordation rate. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. The legal question is what level of disparity constitutes a violation of equal protection. The California systems are well within any reasonable tolerance level and appear to be a half of one percent when the �undervoting� data is eliminated. Pretty durn good record I would say. | The right thing for the Ninth Circuit �Banc� to do would be to suspend the order of the Panel and return the matter to the trial court for competent evidence. If such evidence is adduced, the case will be thrown out on its ear and the lawyers sanctioned for honeyfuggleing the court.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh:
When the supposed constitutional wrong is that the existing plans will lead to machine error and voter confusion, then we should consider whether the remedy will in fact be materially better. So far, there seem to be good reasons to predict that the lost vote problems in the currently punch-card counties may actually increase with a shift to one of the supposedly technically better systems, given the likely glitches whenever a new system is used for the first time in a jurisdiction, and the possible problems flowing from the coupling of the unusually massive candidate list on the recall ballot (where all voters can vote for any candidate) with the primary ballot (where voters can only vote for their own party's candidates). If that's so -- if the constitutional cure is worse than the constitutional disease, based on the very same criteria (risk of lost votes) that are the supposed cause of the current constitutional violation -- then the Ninth Circuit's injunction looks pretty odd indeed.
Peter Robinson begs for help in his Tom vs. Arnold debate with Hugh Hewitt. His only other choice was to say "uncle".
A former 9th circuit clerk weighs in on Ninth Circuit Lefties vs. Constitutional Democracy, 03-56498 and her esteemed former bosses:
Reading the opinion, you can almost hear the panel saying: "Hey, let's not just halt this recall, let's have a little fun with the thing!" The opinion includes a fond historical nod to voting with fava beans and the wry observation that punch cards are "intractably afflicted with technologic dyscalculia." It's tough to count the number of times the judges gleefully point out that the secretary of state is barred from defending the punch-card machines because he is already subject to a consent decree holding that they suck.And the�by my count�12 references to Bush v. Gore often carry the deliberate leadup: "Hey! It's just like the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore." Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the judges on the 9th Circuit haven't been lying awake at night, wondering when they might finally have revenge on the high court for years of abuse and disrespect. There are ample other explanations for 9th Circuit nuttiness (and I know because I clerked there): The number of judges (26) and the fact that they sit in panels of three means that there is little predictability and less accountability for occasional wacky decisions. There is the possibility�which I'd dispute�that 9th Circuit liberals are more liberal than other liberals, including liberal Supreme Court justices. There is the phenomenon known by child psychologists as "labeling theory," wherein the little kid who always gets in trouble for standing in his cubby and pulling his pants down starts to do it because it's expected of him. And there is the fact that the 9th Circuit, while willing to bind itself by existing Supreme Court precedent, is not interested in playing the game played by other courts of appeals�namely, trying to predict how the high court might rule in cases of first impression. If there's no precedent, say the judges of the 9th Circuit, the buck stops here. Hence the Pledge of Allegiance cases, the marijuana cases, and the three-strikes cases.
But none of these explanations really offers the satisfaction inherent in my hypothesis: that the panel stuck it to the Supremes because it could.
InstaPundit is doing some war strategy brainstorming and has come up with a few tactical maneuvers in our war with France..
400,000 disenfranchised California voters and counting. It's a certainty that some of these folks won't vote the next time the Feds allow Californians to hold an election for themselves -- some will be too sick, some will die, some will be so disenchanted with democracy they won't vote. The three Democrats on the 9th circuit seem to have taken the tack of destroying democracy in order to save it. It wouldn't be the first time a group of leftists have taken this road.
Nothing is more dull than a debate about debates. Candidates do what they think is in their best interest, and then make up whatever rationalizations and lies they need to attack their opponent and justify there own position. It happens every time, and anyone who doesn't wake up and smell the coffee on this is just added more lies and bs to our already overly polluted public discourse.
All I want to say is that it is perfectly understandable that Schwarzenegger does not want to share the stage with the like of the crazy lady and the leftist true believer. This would diminish Schwarzenegger, and it would give a bigger stage for anti-Schwarzenegger sound bites. That said, I'm with those who see Ronald Reagan's 1966 run for governor as a model for Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger should get on talk radio in every market in the state and then take calls from listeners until the phone stops ringing. Then he should sit down with Daniel Weintraub, and take questions until Weintraub has run out of things to ask. This is pretty much what Reagan did, and it shut everybody up. Here's another debate the debate story.
UPDATE: California Insider has some smart things to say on the same topic. Quotable:
.. his failure to debate has itself become such a big issue in the campaign that it is now a distraction that is undercutting his campaign. IIt has also put tremendous pressure on him to do well in next Wednesday�s affair, which will be the most-watched political event in California history. If he pulls it off, he could exceed the expectations of voters who have been told he has nothing of substance to offer, and that alone could rocket him to the head of the pack. But if he falters, he�s got no safety net to catch him, and it could be fatal.
My own view has been that this is part of Schwarzenegger's intended strategy. I don't think it's the best strategy, but we'll see.
Jay Leno ought to book Tom McClintock. Who knew?
The candidates also were asked some less weighty questions, such as their favorite book: Bustamante chose Tom Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation," Huffington picked Plato's "Republic," Camejo favored Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" while McClintock's choice was Milton Friedman's "Freedom to Choose."Huffington noted that Schwarzenegger had called Friedman, a conservative economist, a hero of his during the GOP convention last weekend.
McClintock quipped: "Yeah, but I actually read the book."
Laurence Tribe, master spinner law professor, on the 9th circuit decision. What's interesting about this typical bit of sophism from the esteemed Mr. Tribe is that he throws up strawman arguments through argument recasting, claims these arguments have actually been advanced, and then utterly fails to identify anyone who has advanced these arguments. A nice debating trick, that. And a typical one for Tribe.
Another complexity of conducting the recall election at the same time as the primary election is that for California's closed primary election voters must declare their political party affiliation prior to voting. This declaration is made in order to receive the correct ballot for the political party with which the voter is registered. We have seven different political parties, with seven different ballots, i.e. democrat, republican, libertarian, et. cetera. However, the recall election is a general election with numerous partisan candidates and every voter may vote across party lines for his/her choice for governor. Attempting to combine these two totally different types of elections has never been done before and would, in my opinion, result in significant voter confusion and enhanced potential for error.
From the amicus bried of Los Angeles County Registrar Conny B. McCormack, quoted by Priorities & Frivolities.
Professor Henry Brady defends his "voters are too dumb to put a stick in a hole" study, a study which counts intentional non-votes as "errors". Brady explains that individuals are not responsible for their actions in the voting booth -- e.g. intentionally choosing not to vote on a matter, or intentionally choosing two choices -- but rather the external environment is responsible for the voting that takes place in the booth. This, of course, is the grandaddy of all anti-liberal arguments -- and the great justification for the nanny-state.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 03-56498 -- briefs, amicus letters and more.
Rewire This Circuit by Professor Einer Elhauge
The Ninth Circuit federal court's decision delaying the California recall elevates a straw-man argument against Bush v. Gore into constitutional principle, and then employs that bogus principle to deny the California electorate its constitutional right to oust its governor. The straw man is the claim that the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore made it an equal protection violation for different counties to use different ballot-counting methods. Back when it was electorally convenient to them, Democrats lampooned this equal protection theory because it would lead to the absurd conclusion that it was unconstitutional to use punch cards in some counties and not others, which would invalidate just about every election conducted in the last century.
Now, the Ninth Circuit federal court claims that this absurdity is binding constitutional law, and thus requires enjoining the recall because some California counties use punch card technologies and others do not.
But Bush v. Gore never rested on such an equal protection theory. It couldn't have, because that decision sustained a machine recount despite the fact that some Florida counties used punch cards and others used optical scanners. As the Supreme Court stated, "The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections." Instead, Bush v. Gore expressly stated that the issue there was "whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." It stressed that, there, the standards about whether to count a dimpled or partially perforated ballot varied not only between counties but within counties over time and between different counters.
If allowed to exercise such standardless discretion in ballot-counting, counters could engage in political discrimination by manipulating the standard to disfavor the ballots and candidates whose political viewpoints the counters disliked. But such discrimination would be hard to detect or prove precisely because there would be no standard against which to judge the counting. As Bush v. Gore stated, "The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application."
If, in advance of an election, a county adopts a counting technology that undercounts votes in a uniform way, that choice is far less likely to affect the election outcome because its predicted effects apply to both candidates equally. Nor would any county have an incentive to adopt a technology that undercounts its own vote compared to the vote in other counties, for that would simply lessen its own political clout.
Precisely the same distinction is recognized for the conventional constitutional doctrine that bans counties from exercising standardless discretion about whether to grant parade permits because of the fear that it might be exercised against disfavored political viewpoints. No one had ever thought this makes it unconstitutional for one county to allow parades from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, while other counties allow them from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Nor, apparently, did anyone think similar county variations in election machinery raised a constitutional problem for all the other elections conducted since 2000, until this recall created a strategic reason for so claiming ..
The Ninth Circuit's decision was as precipitous as it was unsound. It took an incredibly close election result for the relatively small number of incompletely perforated punch cards to arguably matter in Florida, and the media recount suggests it turned out not to matter even there. Nor has the problem been replicated before or since in other elections. But because of the concern that some similar problem might affect the recall election, the Ninth Circuit is with certainty depriving the entire California electorate of its right to vote on whether it wants a different governor for the next six months.
The Ninth Circuit appears not to have noticed the irony that, in so holding, it is keeping in office a governor who himself was elected under a system that used punch cards in some counties and not others, and thus must, under its theory, be holding office unconstitutionally. Does this mean Gray Davis cannot be removed from office by a recall election but can by judicial injunction? Or does the court really think that the best way to vindicate a purported right to vote using equal vote-counting technology is to require voters to keep in office a governor elected with unequal vote-counting technology?
Rick Hasen has a batch of election nulification litigation links. Including a link to his audio debate with John Eastman on NPR.
Go read Mickey�Kaus, he's good stuff on the punch card / Bush v. Gore story -- and he elaborates on the vital angle originally explored by KFI's Eric Leonard.
Blame Weintraub -- the 12 questions for debate have been released by the California Broadcasters Association.
The prestigious Adam Smith Institute in London has launched a new group blog -- with posting by such folks as Hayek scholar Eamonn Butler.
Lots of 9th circuit election nulification coverage at How Appealing. Also check out California Insider for good links on voting machines -- and the latest on Schwarzenegger's appearance on the Howard Stern show.
"May a U.S. Court of Appeals judge refuse to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent if the judge believes that the precedent is unconscionable? "Yes" is how 9th Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson recently answered that question .. " more.
The Irish Lass gets some good blogosphere press -- it looks like my first blog child is off and running. I enjoyed this quotable from the Lucianne.com site:
"A good friend of mine worked in day camp year ago attended by Arnold's three little daughters. One day one of the little girls couldn't unscrew her thermos lid. She asked a counselor for help, and the counselor had to ask another counselor, and so on, until finally one young man, grunting and straining trying to free the lid asked rhetorically, "Who made your lunch, anyway?" And she answered, "My daddy."
Good story, but one small catch -- Arnold has only two daughters!
"arrogant, ill-considered, poorly-reasoned, over-reaching, unconstitutional" .. yet Fresh Potatoes is at peace.
Another misinformed East Coasty. This time it's law professor (and left-leaning political theorist) Bruce Ackerman who falsely writes:
It is undeniable that California's recall election, which will use punch-card voting systems, has the potential to become another voting fiasco replete with hanging chads and changing standards.
No, California has a single very detailed standard (see below) -- we aren't Florida, folks. My wife calls this sort of misinformed gassing "talking out of one's ass". Academics do it, journalists do it -- sometimes even in the NY Times.
But Ackerman gets this right:
Whatever its other merits or demerits, the court's intervention protected the right of each state to make its voice heard in selecting the president.In contrast, the present decision attacks states' rights at their very core. The short election period is central to California's political integrity. Its constitution places a limit of six months on this extraordinary process. By extending the election beyond this period, the court condemns the state to an extended period of political paralysis.
Your vote -- Garbage? 11,000 completed ballots were received in the mail yesterday by the registar of voters in Sacramento.
there are flaws in the panel's opinion that, if the full Ninth Circuit affirms it, would allow the Supreme Court to reverse the decision while still adhering to its holding in Bush v. Gore .. [For example] the California Secretary of State has adopted a single standard for determining what constitutes a vote in all systems, avoiding different definitions of a vote being used in different counties ..In 1988, the Ninth Circuit declared in Burdick v. Takushi that federal courts should refrain from invalidating state election laws when a reasonable alternative course of action exists. Now, the court has violated this principle by failing to even consider the many post-election remedies available, and the likelihood that the results will make this dispute academic. Consequently, the Supreme Court can reverse this decision solely because it imposes an excessive remedy, while still affirming the fundamental holding of Bush v. Gore that federal courts must ensure the integrity of all elections.
County registrars see no problems with California punch system -- but the do see very serious problems with combining the recall election with the March primary election. Another must read.
California Insider scoop -- Schwarzenegger on Stern Wednesday morning, Larry "Hardball" King Wednesday night.
Thomas Sowell:
Maybe it is just local pride on my part, but I think California is the purest example of [leftist] fundamentalism. New York and Massachusetts have their claims on that title, but California is not called the Left Coast for nothing ..
The [9th circuit] panel ruled that the recall election should be postponed until March 2, 2004, when all counties should have replaced their punch-card systems. The judges also noted that former California Secretary of State Bill Jones, a Republican, "officially" deemed punch cards to be "unacceptable."Wrong, bristled Jones on Monday. Jones noted that after Florida 2000, he pushed for California to modernize its balloting systems by 2006. The ACLU and other organizations sued the state to dump punch-card ballots more quickly. A federal judge in Los Angeles picked March 2004 as the deadline -- and the parties agreed.
"If I had thought these systems were so egregious, I would not have" suggested keeping punch cards until 2006, said Jones. He asked: If the ACLU believed that punch-card ballots disenfranchised voters, "why didn't they appeal that decision" for the 2002 elections?
The answer: As far as I'm concerned, the issue wasn't replacing the punch cards. It was that the ACLU wanted to muck up the recall election, and the Ninth Circuit wanted to help.
As UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein noted, "There are many elections scheduled for November 2003, including a recall election in the city of Lynwood" (which lies in one of the six counties, Los Angeles) "and I'm not aware of anyone who's objected to the use of punch-card ballots in those systems."
A former aide to Jerry Brown when he was secretary of state, Lowenstein described the Monday ruling as "one of the worst instances of judicial interference with elections that I've ever seen, and I've been active in this field for about 30 years."
Elections attorney Chip Nielsen warned that the replacement ballot systems could be worse than punch cards -- because voters and registrars aren't familiar with them. Lowenstein agreed that the new ballot systems could be as problematic as punch cards.
This is another Ninth Circuit horror story. Consider how in 1996, federal judge Thelton Henderson -- a former ACLU board member -- unilaterally overruled Proposition 209, which ended racial preferences in state hiring, contracting and admissions. Proposition 209, which was approved by voters, was based on 1964 federal civil rights law. A Ninth Circuit panel overturned the ruling on appeal. It should act likewise -- and quickly -- with this can of worms and spare California from the U.S. Supreme Court stepping in. As Nielsen noted, this decision spells "pure chaos."
While the ruling noted the need for "orderly" elections, it in itself is a recipe for disorder.
Should counties throw out the absentee ballots of those who have already voted -- or should they let every vote count? No one knows.
On the very first paragraph of the 66-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit judges misquoted Bill Jones, who never said the punch-card system was "unacceptable." (He said it was outdated.) They took a decades-old voting mechanism that helped elect the presidents who appointed them and decided that it was so unreliable as to justify their decision to postpone a scheduled election in which some citizens already had voted.
If punch ballots are so "unacceptable," they should recuse themselves, having won their place on the bench through such a discredited system. But if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the recall.
Mickey�Kaus -- worth quoting:
One--only one--of the problems of government-by-judiciary is that judges think they know all the relevant facts just from reading the briefs of the parties in the case. But they don't. ...
And this:
If you don't think appellate courts pay attention to editorials and other indicators of the public mood, you haven't clerked on an appellate court. ...
The remarkable human brain:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Fcuknig amzanig huh?
(via The Vlookh Cnopsricay ).
The latest Google search visitor to PrestoPundit: Google Search: hack into the DMV to get a licence.
And the number one google search is: Mexifornia drivers licence -- which is a search for a joke "Mexifornia" drivers licence which I haven't featured or linked to.
Here is the web site of the company which financed the Berkeley study cited by the 9th circuit. In a stunning news report, KFI radio's Erik Leonard reported that intentional non-votes and double votes were counted as "errors" in the study. Also, the counties with the highest error rates were 85% white population counties, one using punch cards, the other not using punch cards. Also, the statistical method used compared racially categorized population figures from the census bureau with raw vote totals, having no racial markers -- a completely flawed methodology. KFI radio continues to run circles around the major Southern California news outlets as a source of investigative journalism on the recall and government crisis in Sacramento.
The 9th circuit court has an annual reversal rate rate of 75% -- more reversals than all of the other district courts combined. All of which is more evidence of a lawless court run amuck. A court dominated by political commitments and personal views rather than a commitment to the rule of law.
Here is the web site of Berkeley Professor Henry Brady, whose comparative statistics provide the underlying race-based rationale for the 9th circuit ruling. Brady is a graduate of MIT, which, research suggests, doesn't have a Republican on the faculty.
Tons of links on the 9th circuit's halting of the ongoing California recall election at at Rough & Tumble.
More on the lawless political appointees ruling from the 9th district:
During his confirmation hearing in 1979, Pregerson said that if the law conflicted with his conscience, he would vote with his conscience.
From an LA Times-Democract profile of the three 9th district political appointees. (via Calblog, whose got more on the election nulification). Note well. 2 of the 3 judges are graduates of the Democrat Party -- and Left -- dominated UC Berkeley School of Law. As I've suggested here before, what is killing us in California as much as anything is our elite institutions -- our major newspapers for example, and more importantly our elite educational institutions. These are Left & Democrat controlled guilds, out of touch with reality, and opposed ideologically to many of the bedrock foundations of classical liberalism, the underlying structure of our free society. To put it simply, they don't understand classical liberalism, their viceral reaction is deeply hostile to it, and they go about inculcating that gut take on true liberalism to their students. It's not at accident that at graduate school I was forced to use study rooms with giant pictures of the Stalinist Che Guevara on the wall, while not a sole knew a lick about Hayek. Various shades of thinking from the Left is the veritable mono-culture of the University, and this mono-culture is ultimately destructive of a liberal and prosperous society.
The lawless judges on the rogue 9th district panel:
the panel includes Judge Pregerson, who, following the Supreme Court's decision upholding California's three-strikes law, issued a series of dissents stating that he cannot apply the three-strikes law in good conscience. Judge Pregerson makes no attempt to distinguish the cases in which he dissents from the case decided in a contrary fashion by the United States Supreme Court. He does not even attempt to apply a legal rationale for his dissent. Rather, he asserts his own will in place of the legislature which wrote the law, and the United States Supreme Court, which declared that specific law to be constitutional.Then there is Judge Thomas, who gained notoriety recently for authoring the decision which, by applying a procedural rule retroactively, has the potential to overturn more than 100 capital cases. Judge Thomas issued this decision despite the fact that every other circuit (including, ironically, the Ninth Circuit) had previously found that the principle of law that he on relies does not apply retroactively.
Finally there is Judge Paez, who referred to California's Proposition 209 � a popularly enacted civil-rights initiative which prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions to state universities � as an "anti-civil rights initiative." Conveniently, the question presented to the court of the whether election may go forward in October affects not only the recall, but the Racial Privacy Initiative sponsored by Ward Connerly. As luck would have it, Mr. Connerly was also the sponsor of Paez's favorite: Prop. 209.
more.
Riordan:
Having a rule of law that people can rely on with confidence is necessary for democracies to succeed ..
BOMBSHELL
And voting officials, already struggling to produce an election on a short deadline, were handed a new problem to consider: whether combining the lengthy recall ballot with the primary in March would produce a behemoth too large for the newer voting machines to handle."It's more than a wrinkle," said Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack. "No one even asked the largest county in the state if we had the capacity to run it in March. The answer is no."
-- picked from today's LA Times by California Insider
The unbound arrogance -- arrogance -- of these three political appointees becomes more glaring with each passing hour.
We are a country were at the root of everything is the premise that the people rule -- the power and authority of the government comes from the people. It is important sometimes to assemble together such fundamental reminders. Here are some more:
-- Three Federal judges are intervening in an ongoing democratic election mandated by the California constitution and called by the proactive democratic involvement of 2 million citizens who signed the recall petition. Californians have been voting in the recall election for several days now. The court is not delaying an election which has yet to be held, they are suspending an election in the middle of the thing as the voting takes place.
-- There is no federal constitutional protection against an individual's own idiocy or incompetence. And as a citizen in the voting booth -- as we are before the law -- we are individuals with the rights of individuals. We are not the franchised representives of a race or a skin color or a class interest -- in the voting booth we exercise nothing other than our rights as individuals, as unique selves. It important to reflect on simple facts. Any voting method is subject to voting failure on the part of individual election participants. And children as young as 3 or even 2 have proven themselves capable of using the punch voting system, a system generations have used with no threat to democracy.
-- Timeliness is the essence of the logic of recall. This is clear not only from the particulars of the California constitution, it's also clear from the very idea of recall -- a process which provides a more timely procedure for correcting gross governmental incompetence, malfeasance and mismanagement. A recall delayed is a recall denied. It's the nulification of the power the people of California have by rights given to themselves -- taken away by 3 men who by rights do not have this power and authority. That is, if we are still to be a democracy where power and authority ultimately resides in the people -- i.e. where the people rule, and not as for to long in to many places, only a priviledged few rule. Are the courts our masters, or do the people rule in America? With this new decision it becomes one small measure less clear that we do.
Well, I'm beat. See you all tomorrow.
Angry Clam does a nice fisking of the 9th district's decision to nulify the California Constitution.
Does this still matter? Hugh Hewitt easily mats Peter Robinson in a "should McClintock bail" smackdown -- the first debate of a new National Review Online feature.
Priorities & Frivolities has a blog roundup and analysis of the political implications of the Fed decision to nulify the California constitution. This pick from Hindrocket was particularly worthy:
Fresh Potatoes defies the court .. tonight he's headed to the post office to mail in his absentee ballot.
Shark Blog ponders Canada:
Things we can learn from Canada Here's what I learned from Canada today --a) The best way to get people to stop smoking marijuana is to put the government in charge of growing marijuana.
b) The best way to get people to not watch movies is to put the government in charge of producing movies.
Tune in to the next installment of "Things we can learn from Canada" where we ponder the question: "What is the best way to stop people from getting suitable medical care?"
Go to Sharkblog for the links.
SoCalLawBlog rips the 9th district court's Constitution nulification decision. A choice bit of the analysis:
If different counties in Florida were using different methods to interpret ballots that were already cast (i.e. one county would consider a "hanging chad" as a vote while another would discount it), is that the same as having different voting systems (i.e. punch-card vs. touch-screen voting) in terms of passing constitutional muster. The Supreme Court held the first instance in Florida to be unconstiutional under the Equal Protection Clause. But can the reasoning of how to interpret a cast ballot be applied to the voting systems themselves?Contrary to the claims of the Ninth Circuit and the supporters of this decision, that issue was never addressed by Bush v. Gore. Indeed the Supreme Court explicitly stated in its decision that such a question has not been decided. Bush v. Gore states, "The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards."
Amazingly, the Ninth Circuit quotes this very same passage in its decision to declare the opinion to be simple application of Bush v. Gore. Apparently, the Ninth Circuit has seemingly interpreted the phrase "local entities" to mean "states", when clearly it was meant to refer to "counties". This issue has clearly not been decided by the Supreme Court yet ..
To require statewide uniformity in voting methods would put every statewide election at the mercy of a single county official who could very easily scrap elections either through individual negligence or deliberate sabotage.
And SoCalLawBlog's immediate reaction to the decision is one that deserves a wide audience, including this notable quotable:
Lawyers and the courts in this country have succeeded in creating an atmosphere where many segments of the populace feel that absolutely no decision in governance is in their hands - even indirectly. Needless to say, that is not healthy. Violent revolutions have started over much less. While that certainly doesn't seem to be in the air in this country, it always gets your humble blogger to question just what exactly the colonists were upset about when they took on the British.
Bound in a Nutshell has some solid California constitution nulification analysis, including this:
It is also clearly true that this impinges democracy. The court's opinion showed the court to have completely failed to understand the urgency of a recall election (an urgency which every other court to have heard a case on the subject grasped). The clear mandate in state law that recalls be dealt with promptly is brushed off as being of little import (despite mounting evidence that a six-month long recall campaign will paralyze state government, annoy the voters, and completely change the nature of the campaign and the effectiveness of the candidates). The will of the voters is being frustrated, and the pent up rage that caused the recall in the first place will merely intensify, and seek new targets. It's a politically tactless decision.And yet ... the central argument of the decision is one which has merit ..
Bound in's explanation why is worth a read.
A caller to the John and Ken show pointed out that many polling places have kiddie ballots for parents voting with the little ones -- kids get to use the punch ballot to vote for Barney, Mickey Mouse, etc. The caller pointed out that his kids had no difficulty voting by themselves with ballot even at the age of two and three.
-- political analyst Jay Leno.
Recall scholar Joshua Spivak --
"What Is the History of Recall Elections?" and "Why Did California Adopt the Recall?". Must reading for recall pundits and bloggers.
It wasn't a gangbang -- everyone kept there clothes on -- but call it a group love in between Oprah, Maria, Arnold, and Oprah female audience. Schwarzenegger leaps across the genger gap ..
UPDATE: The NY Times estimates that 850,000 California women saw the Oprah-Arnold-Maria broadcast Monday.
One of the biggest responses of the broadcast came when Oprah asked Shriver if -- as a Kennedy -- she'd been raised to look the other way at spousal womanizing. "You know that ticks me off. I am my own woman. I have not been bred to look the other way. I accept him with all his strengths and all his weaknesses, as he does me," Shriver answered to loud applause.
Here's the Reuter's story.
The bottom line of the whole thing is that Maria Shriver is an impressive advocate for her husband and this candidacy for Governor of California -- and a few hundred thousand of those women watching Oprah earlier today will no doubt be punching their chad for Schwarzenegger, if the courts will allow us to hold our election and follow our Constitution.
STUNNER -- RECALL ELECTION BLOCKED BY 3 DEMOCRATS.
Unelected Federal bench panel cancels democratic elections, says stuff it to voters of California. The Constitution of California is voided in unbelievable, shocking court ruling. Read the opinion here.
"The three judges from the 9th Circuit who heard [CA recall] the case were all appointed by Democratic presidents � Judge Pregerson by President Carter and judges Sidney Thomas and Richard A. Paez by President Clinton � and are considered among the most [far left] on the court."
And Debra Saunders:
"The 9th Circuit Court is known for its blatant disregard for legal niceties when it comes to decisions that grate against the court's rarefied politics."
From the courts Orwellian opinion:
"In addition to the public interest factors we have discussed, we would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation's history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections helf fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy."
RECALL BLOCKED Google News Search here.
Calblog is half way through the opinion and has her instant opinion here. She has this reminder, "Not coincidentally, March is the Democratic primary, expected to increase Democratic turnout."
Xrlq has this:
The basis for this ruling is a little-known provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:"No state shall ... use punch card ballots... in any specially-called election against a Democrat incumbent. Nothing in this section shall preclude such state from using punch card ballots to re-elect said Democrat in a regularly scheduled election."
And here is Fresh Potatoes on the Federal disenfranchisement of Californian voters.
Kausfiles provides evidence of the "condescending, museum-quality [leftist] mindset" of one of the federal judges, and lots, lots more.
Election Law Blog argues in favor of the cancellation of democracy in California.
We should never be surprised at the Ninth Circuit's depredations. It has been a rogue court for more than 20 years. We shall have to await a close reading of the decision by our legal friends, but one question that comes to mind is whether the holding of this court is that punch card ballots are ipso facto unconsitutional, based on the Supreme Court's holding in Bush v. Gore in 2000.There were some of our legal scholars (like Mike McConnell) who worried in December 2000 that the Supreme Court's use of the equal protection argument as it applied to the counting of punch card ballots in Bush v. Gore would come back to bite conservatives. Setting aside the constitutional wisdom of the California recall, this appears to be the specter that McConnell worried about. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles the appeal, i.e., whether it modifies Bush v. Gore and repudiates the Ninth Circuit once again, or whether it punts entirely, not wishing to be drawn into another political mess. If the Supreme Court overrules the Ninth Circuit, it will add fuel to the fire of the left that there is a giant GOP conspiracy to steal elections (even though this is nonsense).
Law professor Instapundit quotes Porphyrogenitus:
"Regular readers know I'm against the Recall on general principles. Still, three judges have decided that the voting machines which were good enough to elect and re-elect Grey Davis are too error prone to recall him. No partisan agenda there, I'm sure."
Then offers his own opinion:
"Unless there's some awfully compelling legal principle that's not making it into the press accounts, I predict a reversal on this one. It's just too explosive.
Robert Tardorda has extensive coverage here.
�One million, six hundred thousand Californians of all political persuasions have signed petitions to recall Governor Gray Davis. The Secretary of State has certified that this election should go forth on October 7th. The California Supreme Court has also ruled that the election should go forward on October 7th. I fully expect that the federal courts will come to the same conclusion.�Today, I call upon the Secretary of State to immediately appeal this decision on behalf of the citizens who have exercised their constitutional right to recall Gray Davis, and who expect an election on October 7th.
�Historically, the courts have upheld the rights of voters, and I expect that the court will do so again in this case.
�I will continue to vigorously campaign for governor. The people have spoken, and their word should � and will � prevail.�
� .. I have one narrow question: Assuming that punch card ballots are generally less reliable than the alternatives, why should we think that using punch card ballots in several counties in Oct. 2003 would be less reliable than using the alternatives for the fist time in those counties in Mar. 2004?Several county governments, containing millions of voters, are scheduled to change their way of doing things, all at once, in the Mar. 2004 election. Sounds to me like a recipe for lots of snafus, in which quite a few votes may get lost, ignored, and otherwise uncounted or improperly counted (and, just as the problems with punch card ballots disproportionately hit voters in the counties that still use punch card ballots, so the problems with the changeover will disproportionately hit voters in the counties that will change over).
Now I don't think that this modest level of error would be unconstitutional. I think that as a policy matter, it might well make sense to risk some amount of such glitches in order to get things worked out for the future (if one thinks that over the long haul there'll be fewer problems with the new technologies than with the old, which I'll assume for now).
But the Ninth Circuit's assertion is that there is no "rational basis" for continuing with the old system -- and thus that there's a constitutional obligation to wait until the new system is in place -- because running the recall election under the current system will produce a substantial error rate and running the recall election under the new system would produce a lower error rate. I'm just not confident that this is so. Maybe I'm wrong, because the shifts to the new system are likely to be less troublesome than I'm afraid they might be. But given what we know about complex systems (especially government-run ones), I suspect that my gut feeling is correct here.
Daniel Wiener predicts a Democrat busting Supreme Court split decision.
Rick Hasen, election law blogger:
Preliminary thoughts on the ACLU punch card decision by the Ninth Circuit ..1. Were the judges right to enjoin the recall? When the recall litigation started, I was very skeptical of most claims that were being brought to delay or change the rules for the recall. (For example, see here.) I said here back on August 1 that the punch card suit was the case to watch because the issue presented is so strong.
The argument is simply that the use of punch card votes---with their concededly much higher error rates--- in some counties but not others in a statewide election violates the equal protection clause. This is a straightforward application of Bush v. Gore. Indeed, back in 2001 I wrote this article about what Bush v. Gore's equal protection holding would mean if we took the case seriously, and I set out a series of hypotheticals. The punch card case was the easy case, my first hypothetical. If it violates equal protection to use non-uniform voting standards for recounting votes in a statewide election , if that "values one person's vote over another" in violation of the Equal Protection Clause as Bush says, then it must be an equal protection violation to use different machines with different error rates in the same election. This creates a systematic geographical disparity---if you live in Los Angeles or another county using punch cards, your chances of casting a ballot that will be counted is much lower than your chances from another county. The state knows it, and it could have prevented it from happening. If Bush v. Gore does not apply here, it applies nowhere and the opinion, as many of its detractors claim, has no precedential value.
2. What is noteworthy about the Ninth Circuit opinion? It applies Bush v. Gore in a straightforward manner. It hold that the state's claim fails even under rational basis review. This surprised me somewhat; my brief argues that strict scrutiny should apply and that under that standard, the use of punch cards fail. Another notable point is that the court did not even reach the Voting Rights Act issues, which potentially would have been a less controversial way to decide the case---without directly implicating Bush v. Gore. Finally, the opinion does not set a March date for a recall. It enjoins the October 7 election and lets the district court sort out whether the state can run an election without punch cards on a quicker schedule.
3. What is likely to happen next? The losing parties (the Secretary of State and recall intervenor Ted Costa) can petition the entire Ninth Circuit to hear the case en banc by a panel of 11 judges chosen at random or the parties can go to the Supreme Court, first to Justice O'Connor (the Circuit's Justice) for a stay. Justice O'Connor is currently out of the country. She likely would forward the request to the entire Supreme Court. Would either group be interested in the case? If either takes the case (and as Fred Woocher pointed out to me, any judge on the Ninth Circuit can call for an en banc vote even if the parties don't ask for it), it will be a good sign that a reversal is coming. But I think there is a reasonable chance that neither will want to take the case--especially the Supreme Court, which, having been criticized severely for intervening in the 2000 presidential election may not want to intervene again now when the stakes are, thankfully, much lower. We have no national election on the line, no potential transition crisis. Remember, the Court did not get involved after the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to allow Democrats to replace Sen. Torricelli on the ballot. that case too, raised a Bush v. Gore issue, albeit a different one (the right of the legislature, rather than the state courts, to determine the rules for federal elections). Note, there are also some interesting standing questions about who can appeal to the Supreme Court---expect these issues to arise as this continues.
Look for continuing blog coverage throughout the day from:
The Southern California Law Blog
Yes on Recall, Yes on Schwarzenegger. Xrlq is pumped up and voting today.
Pete Wilson discusses illegal immigration with National Review editor Rich Lowry:
The NYTimes reports today: "With Californians facing a shrinking number of high-paying blue-collar jobs, a huge state deficit and reduced access to the state colleges, the immigration issue has never gone away, even if mainstream politicians avoided talking about it." This is almost exactly what Pete Wilson told me a couple of weeks ago. He was commenting on a VDH cover story in NR: "I would disagree with only one thing and that was his first sentence. He said California "gave up" years ago on contesting illegal immigration. That's not true. First of all, the actual responsibility to control the border, legally and constitutionally, is with the feds. Second, they really didn't give up - 187 was, I think, remarkable. And it was scuttled by the courts. So I wouldn't agree with him that they have quit fighting it. They don't see the means at hand with this governor to do that, but hell, 187 would pass today, I think perhaps by a greater margin."
Shark Blog joins the vast right wing conspiracy the California Bear Flag League. Welcome aboard!
Grover Norquist -- "Don't Even Think About Raising Taxes"
Another interview with Schwarzenegger's old flame Barbara Outland Baker.
California Insider fact checks Bill Clinton campaigning for Gray Davis. Infinitely charitable, Weintraub gives every benefit of the doubt to Clinton, saying merely that Clinton's "history was a little on the weak side", that Clinton left some things out, and that one of his arguments "doesn't apply". But what we know about Clinton and his associates is that this stuff is not accidental, it's premeditated. And so by being "charitable" Weintraub actually falsifies the story -- i.e. gets the story wrong. The straight "just that facts" reporting in the case of Clinton campaigning for Davis is another instance of "there he goes again" -- there he goes with plain as day duplicity, a mucking up of the public discourse with "big lie" fabrications of the facts of California constitutional law, and a laughably false picture of the governor making hard decisions in the pre-recall world. Of course, this is a well burried lie because it insinuates that Gray Davis did make such hard decisions prior to the recall, when in fact the very reason he's being recalled it that he refused to make the hard decisions the state so desperately required.
Reporters spend so much time around politicians that they come to accept deception and duplicity as something folks in polite company don't call attention to -- putting light on such a thing is a social mistake sort of like a young child pointing out that grandma's makeup isn't put on right, or some parts of her underclothes are exposed. You've supposed to just ignore it and pretend its not there, or use some sort of euphemism like "spin" to pretend that it's something other than what it really is -- the big lie, the poluting of the public discourse. The greatness of H.L. Mencken -- and the great joy his political writing gives -- comes in part from liberty Mencken allows himself to be the growup intelligently revealing the truth all around him that any child can see, but that the cowering "get along to go along" adults pretend doesn't exist. And the truth Mencken most often exposes is that the moral high road of the politician was almost always a means for the politician to serve up the big lie in a way most appealing to the gullible and the wishful thinking -- which 9 times out of 10 included the deep-down hopelessly idealistic and agenda driven reporter, who was cynical only on the surface.
Well, my rant has taken me a bit away from where I began, and I'm at a point where it has little to do with California Insider, who I'm convinced is just a nice guy who doesn't want to go beyond were the facts very strickly allow him to go. All I'm suggesting is that these things prevent him from really telling the truth when he tells the story of Clinton, Davis and the Clinton campaign against the recall.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan provides a good example of Clinton doing what he constantly does -- intentionally using the Big Lie for political gain:
CLINTON LIES - SHOCK HORROR: Will Saletan has another example of something Maureen Dowd has also mentioned in the past - that the Bush administration tried to increase the levels of arsenic in the drinking water. Who repeated that hoary old canard? None other than former president Bill Clinton at the Iowa State Fair, saying that the Republicans "tried to put more arsenic in the water." He knows that it was his administration that delayed new, tighter arsenic standards for eight years, and that all the incoming Bush administration did was to review the last-minute directives from the Clinton White House, before enforcing a standard that was stricter than was the case for all of the Clinton administration. But, hey, who's listening any more to that incorrigible old rogue? The blogosphere, that's who.
California Women's Leadership Forum and the California Young Republicans polled 1200 people at the Republican convention in Los Angeles -- 82.5% supported Schwarzenegger.
Reported by The Irish Lass.
The San Diego Union Tribune has an official recall blogger. He has the practiced tone and perspective -- cynical condescension towards those dumb aliens among us, Republicans -- typical of a college political science professor, which he is.
Is giving licences to lawbreaking foreigners a bad idea? Well, there are at least ten major problems with it.
Taxed to death:
California's sales tax rate of 7.25 percent is highest in the nation.California is sixth-highest in a ranking of the 50 states' corporate income-tax burdens.
California ranks at No. 11 in a ranking of the 50 states' property-tax burdens.
California is sixth-highest in a ranking of the 50 states' individual income-tax burdens.
California is No. 8 among the 50 states if you measure the dollar amount of state taxes paid per resident. As of Jan. 1, the California average was $2,214, according to the Tax Foundation.
There are four of us now in the PrestPundit family, so that would be $8,856. I'm a full time dad during the week, and I work both Saturdays and Sundays, and my annual take home income is within the range of that tax burden. Two kids, two cars, a new home -- you do the math -- direct and indirect California taxes basically appropriate my whole take home pay. So my weekends are dedicated to paying for the retirement at 50 (at 90% pay) of government employees -- and other such things the politicians thought they needed to do to in order to advance their careers.
Also quotable:
Bill Ahern, Tax Foundation spokesman, says that although California taxes aren't high in every category, they're high in the categories that matter most to companies making decisions about where to do business. That's what gives California an anti-business image, he says ..In a California Business Roundtable survey of 400 companies statewide, 20 percent were planning to move or expand out of state.
Dan Walters on Schwarzenegger, the GOP, and McClintock:
Movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger's improbable quest for the governorship of California is utterly dependent on consolidating support among fellow Republicans. Schwarzenegger does not need every Republican vote to win his duel with Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante -- should Gov. Gray Davis be recalled -- but he does need at least two-thirds of them as a base to which he could add some independents and Democrats .."I can say no -- no to Davis, no to Bustamante, no to more taxes, no to more spending," Schwarzenegger pledged. "I will be saying no to these liberals in Sacramento." ..
[McClintock] has a little ax to grind with the state GOP leadership for not helping him with money last year when he was running very close to Democrat Steve Westly in their contest for the state controller's office.
Jared Diamond on the effects of globalization and genetic engineering -- 10,000 years ago.
"Tearing down the mirror" -- a Mercury News Schwarzenegger profile.
The Left dominates in Sacramento, passing landmark socialized medicine legislation forcing firms to cough up multi-millions in a massive new tax on business.
"I am a conservative."
"I'm conservative because Milton Friedman is right and Karl Marx is wrong.I'm a conservative because I believe communism is evil and free enterprise is good.
I'm a conservative because I believe in a balanced budget, not in budget deficits.
I'm a conservative because I believe money that people earn is their money, not the government's money.
When you look at this driver's license outrage.. I'm a conservative because I believe in the rule of law, not in political pandering .. I will take this Davis driver's license law and I will terminate it. I'll go to the Legislature for repeal, and if they refuse to act swiftly, I will take my case to the people and we will overturn it ourselves.
drawing upon Ronald Reagan's inspiration and example, we will change California .. "
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger -- rallying Republicans Saturday. Schwarzenegger told Club of Growth Stephen Moore that he will consider a flat tax and possibly capital gains tax cuts as Governor. Schwarzenegger releases his economic plan next week. The candidate also suggested that going forward with some sort of Gann-type amendment restricting spending increases to the rate of citizen income growth.
More at Reuters; and the LA Times, which included this:
Assemblyman Ray Haynes of Murietta, a conservative stalwart, announced his endorsement of Schwarzenegger and took issue with McClintock's jibe that the actor was an "amateur." McClintock had made the comment while criticizing his opponent's refusal to detail specific budget cuts before a post-election audit."Government's not rocket science, to be real blunt," Haynes said. "It doesn't take a whole lot of time to figure out what's going on." He called McClintock "the North Star" of conservatives, but said the state senator could not win. "Tom is a friend of mind, but Tom is not a consensus builder," Haynes said.
And this:
Schwarzenegger said his model in office would be Ronald Reagan, and he promised to take a bust of the actor-turned-governor along with him to Sacramento. "It's going to remind of the impact one individual can have."
UPDATE: Fresh Potatoes reports on his day at the convention.
Another Ronald Reagan reality check for national conservative yackity yacks who don't know much about history -- or Ronald Reagan, this time from Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College:
A lot of conservatives will reject the Reagan-Schwarzenegger comparison and say that Reagan was a man of principle and Schwarzenegger is a compromiser. [But in fact] Reagan was a compromiser .. Reagan was a pragmatist. Reagan's first big act as governor was to raise taxes, in fact the biggest tax increase in American state history up to that time. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in America.
More -- Lou Cannon interviewed in the NY Times on Reagan's gigantic tax increase.
The drum beat -- it may not be entirely fair, but it's getting louder. Conservative Sacramento talk show host Ed Hogue:
Tom and I are good friends. He's guest-hosted my show. He's got tremendous character. A great man with a huge bright future. But Tom can't win, and he needs to get out.
Orange County residents -- the OC Register wants you:
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver will appear on �The Oprah Winfrey Show� at 3 p.m. Monday on KABC/7. The Register is looking for voters who will be watching. If you�d be willing to participate in a brief telephone interview before and after the show, please call (714) 796-3686 by Monday morning.
Promises made by lieutenant governor go unkept Bustamante's record shows little action on pledges to create jobs and cut waste. By KIMBERLY KINDY The Orange County Register
Cruz Bustamante made big promises about boosting the economy and cutting government waste when he was elected lieutenant governor in 1998 but failed to deliver on most of them, a review of his record shows.Bustamante, who is running on the ballot to replace Gov. Gray Davis in case the governor is recalled, promised to create jobs - relying in part on an economic-development commission he heads. The commission has a director and received $792,000 in state funding the past two years, but it has never held a meeting, and campaign and office staff declined to provide the Register with any information that would account for what they have done.
Bustamante also promised that unnecessary and fraudulent spending would be rooted out by his Lt. Governor's Commission on Government Waste. But the commission was not formed ..
.. records show the lieutenant governor's annual budget has increased every year since Bustamante was elected to the position. The budget went from $1.7 million in 1999-2000 to $2.5 million in this year's budget - a 139 percent increase over that of his immediate predecessor, Davis ..
Read California Insider for the latest scuttlebut from the Republican convention -- among other things it looks like the Republican county chairman are lining up behind a Schwarzenegger only race to the finish line position.
Hugh Hewitt cherry picks this quote from reliable conservative State Assemblyman Ray Haynes.
Tom McClintock's "true friends are trying to give him a dose of reality. We can take this [race], but not with Tom. If we're going to catch the wave, we've got to hop on Schwarzenegger's surfboard."
Ward Connerly rips Schwarzenegger:
I am disgusted that the .. leading Republican candidate can so blatantly misrepresent Proposition 54, and needlessly alarm the people of California by falsely claiming health risks, and suffer no adverse political consequence for [these] lies and distortions ..I am disgusted that a Republican candidate for governor who wants to wear the crown of Ronald Reagan and considers himself a disciple of Milton Friedman would support government intrusion into private lives by categorizing human beings on the basis of skin color and other physical traits. No true disciple of Friedman supports this kind of activity.
I am disgusted that a candidate for office who wants the government to stay out of the bedroom of consenting adults and out of the doctor�s office when a pregnant woman is making the choice about abortion or not, would want that same government to be in the delivery room asking the mother and father of their newborn child to designate a �race� on some stupid government form.
"right-wing crazies"
Did Schwarzenegger say it or didn't he?
Steve Hayward -- voice of the kamikaze conservatives:
If McClintock drops out, I strongly suspect that conservatives will still turn out to turn out Davis; they will skip Part B on the ballot, and not vote for any replacement. Taking Davis out will still be a deeply satisfying thing, even if Bustamante .. replaces Davis. The message will get through to Arnold and the GOP establishment that they can't take conservatives' votes for granted.
Bill Bradley's Weekly column. Money quote:
It is obvious that Bustamante does not know what caused the state budget crisis, which precipitated the recall election in which he is now participating. He also does not understand the dynamics of the power crisis, merely the seminal event in the unraveling of Gray Davis� political standing.
And this:
Although Schwarzenegger just received an unprecedented endorsement from the state Chamber of Commerce � the first time in 100 years that it has endorsed a gubernatorial candidate � the ex�Mr. Universe, strongly backs the state�s landmark anti-global-warming law, which had been targeted by the Chamber and other business groups as a major �job killer.� Schwarzenegger also backs major renewable-energy programs.
Calling all ghost writers:
Arnold's first girlfriend, Barbara Outland Baker, is seeking to publish a memoir on their 1970's relationship. In this proposed book, she plans to reveal dozens of great new Schwarzenegger photographs no one has ever seen.Barbara, an English professor, met the then Mr. Universe in 1969 and became his first real girlfriend until they split up in 1974. "Surviving Arnold" is the working title but it will mention plenty of great personal qualities about The Oak.
And here is the Reuters story.
UPDATE: Reuters interviews Barbara Outland Baker on her life with Schwarzenegger.
And here is an alternative version of the interview. Quotable:
She also strongly backs Schwarzenegger for governor. "He's focused, he's capable, whatever needs to be done he will do it."
Bruce Herschensohn on Hugh Hewitt today at 3:20 PM.
Hugh Hewitt must have missed this:
Bruce Herschensohn, the conservative GOP nominee for Senate who lost to Democrat Barbara Boxer in 1992, is backing McClintock and said he knows it's a risk. "I'll vote for the person I agree with most," Herschensohn said. Otherwise, "my conscience would bother me tremendously. I can't do it."
Students for Academic Freedom -- 70 chapters and growing.
Busted -- David Horowitz exposes a case of journalistic malpractice in press coverage of the Colorado academic diversity story.
Bustamante's negatives up to 50% in new LA Times poll.
-- 27% wish there were more candidates on the replacement ballot.
-- less than half of McClintock supporters say they will definitely vote McClintock.
-- 18% say Gray Davis will be a strong leader. Really.
-- 42% say Schwarzenegger will reduce the influence of special interests in Sacramento. This could be Schwarzenegger's ticket to the governors office -- Schwarzenegger leads McClintock by only 3% points on the issue of leadership.
.. ever notice how vaguely lefty Republicans are "moderate" while vaguely lefty Democrats are "centrist?"
I hadn't. Nice call by The Angry Clam.
George H.W. Bush contributes $1,000 to the Schwarzenegger campaign, as Team Arnold prepares for the Republican party convention.
Here is the Schwarzenegger interview with Bill O'Reilly.
Watch it. Share it. We haven't forgotten. And we won't. (via Instapundit).
Cost of a Bustamante electorial win -- $8 billion dollars minimum. Cost of a Bill Quick electorial rant -- priceless (be sure to scroll down for the best rant of them all -- and note in passing that the Angry Clam has already marked his ballot for governor).
Stanford poll has Schwarzenegger leading Boostyourtaxes by 12%. (via the Condor).
Here's a snippet:
.. unlike almost all other workers in society, university professors are granted tenure -- a lifetime job from which it is almost impossible to be fired -- precisely in order to guarantee freedom of expression. But in practice, the tenure process has become the means by which the left rigorously weeds out conservatives. In many university departments, opposition from a single faculty member is all that is necessary to deny tenure. These days, such a blackball is most likely to be used against a conservative, especially in disciplines such as sociology, history, English and government.Professor Robert Maranto of Villanova discussed this insidious practice in the Baltimore Sun on July 31. "While colleges strive for ethnic diversity," he wrote, "they actively oppose ideological diversity." The result is a lack of meaningful debate on campuses that makes corporate boardrooms a model of give-and-take. The reason is that in business, those who keep out new ideas lose market share to competitors. "But within the ivory tower, professors can hold dumb ideas for decades with no accountability," Maranto notes.
.. read it all.
Sept. 11, 2003 and the war goes on.
There are many fronts in any war but rarely is the domestic front as important as it is now. If you live in California consider on this day doing the small but important task of requesting a petition for the initiative to retain a minimally secure state identification card, by filling out the form found here.
What did you do in the war daddy?
I just got off the phone with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I'm a Republican. I want to vote for him. I want to believe. Schwarzenegger doesn't quite convince me. That little extra something that tells me he's one of us -- a Republican who is willing to cut spending and gut bad regulations -- is missing. I think that man lurks behind the curtain, but I didn't quite hear him on the speakerphone ...
... Debra Saunders
Kathleen Connell is the sort of Democrat the likes of which we'll probably never see again -- call her the woman who by rights would be the most admired Democrat in the state. Anyway, I'd missed her most recent piece on the state budget crisis. Important stuff. (via VP)
Mark Glaser has an article on the top internet sites and blogs covering the California recall and race to replace. Glaser thinks the LA Times has the best recall page. And of course, Glaser knows about Weintraub. No mention of Kaus, no mention of Instapundit, no mention of Calblog, no mention of Bill Bradley, no mention of Hugh Hewitt, no mention of Fresh Potatoes, no mention of Tacitus, no mention of Robert Tagorda .. indeed, no mention of anyone in the California Bear Flag League, etc.
And then this on a flash cartoon available at the crazy ladies' web site:
No matter your politics, there's something gut-wrenchingly funny seeing Arnold say, "I'm pro-environment," then run over trees, schools and children in his Hummer.
No, actually the cartoon was about as funny as a crazy lady knocking over a microphone at a public event -- it just goes "thud" and makes the viewer a bit uncomfortable.
And Glaser cites with approval Drudge's uninvestigated report on "alleged racist comments from Schwarzenegger's past." Glaser is happy to spread the inflamitory charges, without giving equal time to the debunking these charges have gotten from the 1970's bodybuilders at Ironage.us. Don't they teach better than this in journalism 101?
Glaser seems to have his hand firmly on the pulse of old media and old institutions available on the new medium of the internet -- and not much else. He's completely missed, for example, the internet sources out of which the blockbuster MECHa issue developed, such as FrontPage Magazine, Tacitus, InstaPundit, Kausfiles, Sharkblog, Townhall, etc. etc. etc.
Glaser knows a bit about the blogosphere -- why isn't this kind of thing in his "review" of the more important recall websites and blogs?
The conservative Christian Times on the race to replace.
LA police officer "Jack Dunphy" on Davis, the licenses for illegals bill, and Mexicalifornia.
Bush -- governing from the economic theory left. Andrew Sullivan approves. Help me out -- I've forgotten just what is that makes Sullivan a conservative, besides the identity politics thing.
Keynesian economics-- the last great (and completely erroneous) excuse for the expansion of the state.
Kausfiles parks one:
How slow and ponderous is the L.A. Times? The day after Bustamante's comments [i.e. "I think that anybody who works and pays taxes ought to have a right for citizenship"] the Times front page features what must have been a long-in-the-can thumbsucker headlined"Candidates Skirt Immigration Issue."
Didn't sound to me as if Bustamante was skirting the immigration issue! .... The Warm Bath of Concern: A more accurate summary of Teresa Watanabe's Times piece would have been "Immigration Debate Has Moved Left as Latinos Fulfill Glorious Demographic Destiny," or perhaps "Why Nobody's an Anti-Immigrant Racist Anymore." But Times hed writers prefer the muffled pundit tone, in keeping with the paper's unstated motto, "Why Be Interesting?" ... Even if Watanabe's thesis is correct, it would have been nice if she'd acknowledged what had actually happened in the real world during the previous week. Weintraub somehow managed. Instead, Watanabe quotes an expert saying "It's not politically correct to talk about illegal immigration" -- a day or so after Schwarzenegger talked about illegal immigration....
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
McClintock and the McClintock conservatives -- leaping off the cliff one more time?
Hayek taught us that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the radical left and the radical right -- both were statists and both were enemies of true liberalism. Here is Mussolini's original socialist/facist slogan:
"Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state."
And here is MECHa's variation on that slogan:
"For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing".
The Mussolini quote was found in Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven on Earth, by a reader of Instapundit. Muravchik hosted a Hayek-L seminar on his book last October.
Howard Stern -- newsman. An FCC ruling opens the way for newsbreaking discussions of gangbanging with governatorial candidates Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mary Carey. Wonder what Dan Rather -- and Pat O'Brien -- think now that Stern is an official government approved fairness doctrine peer.
Here is the California Chamber of Commerce poll. California Insider has some highlights here.
DRUDGE REPORT has Ueberroth out of the race. That should put Schwarzenegger out in front. Was Ueberroth tuning in to John and Ken?
You don't see commentaries like this one every day on a candidate's official campaign web site.
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.
Bustamante -- master of the big lie:
During [Bustamante's] speech Sunday he said it was unfair to allow immigrants to serve and die in the armed forces while state policy denies them driver's licenses, as if he were talking about the same population. But U.S. military policy allows only legal immigrants to enlist. Any illegal immigrants who fought and died in the services have done so in violation of the rules.
From a Daniel Weintraub column on immigration law and the race to replace.
Here is the latest Field Poll on the California race to replace.
Citizens Against Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants -- SaveOurLicense.com. Circulate petitions for the referendum to overturn SB60.
90 days, 400,000 signatures, and the things is dead -- until the citizens - citizens - of California get a chance decide this matter for themselves in March. Any guess how the vote might go?
Bruce Bartlett on George Bush, the anti-Reagan:
despite the need to rebuild America�s defenses, Reagan never let it be an excuse to give up on controlling domestic spending. It would have been a lot easier for him to buy the votes needed for national defense by loosening the domestic spending reins. But he never did and fought hard to bring domestic discretionary spending down from 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 3.1 percent by 1988. That is equivalent to reducing spending by $165 billion per year in today�s economy.By contrast, George W. Bush has raised domestic discretionary spending by 0.4 percent of GDP in just his first 2 years in office � equivalent to $630 billion over the next decade if sustained.
A key reason why Reagan made his effort is because he understood that the health of the U.S. economy was critical to national security and the defeat of Soviet communism. He knew that big government is a drag on the economy � not just because of the high taxes that go with it, but because it preempts resources that the private sector can use more efficiently. Thus, an increase in government�s share of GDP will eventually reduce growth even if taxes don�t rise.
What the indian monopoly priviledge on gaming is doing to California politics -- and its urban cities. Don't miss the Barbara Boxer nugget.
How vicious and dishonest can "mainstream" Lefties be? Well, this ugly:
"Wait a minute. I thought Tom DeLay liked 'hate crimes.'
-- MSNBC sponsored Eric Alterman. Will he be fired for falsely and viciously saying that a Congressional leader likes it when innocent Americans are murdered or beaten? Don't hold your breath. Alterman is immune because he has a halo on as a man of the Left. And of course DeLay is by definition evil -- he's both a Republican and a Christian. What more needs to be said?
John Fund's California Diary -- Fund is doing some of the best analytic reporting on California and the race to replace.
Bustamante's new "big lie" -- from a California Insider report:
Sounding no more informed than a cranky letter writer to the local paper, Bustamante badly mischaracterized the roots of California�s budget crisis, falsely claiming that the electricity purchases the state made on behalf of the utilities in 2001 erased the budget surplus and forced the state to cut vital programs .. [The claim] is completely untrue, and any second-year staffer in the Legislature could tell you so .. The electricity purchases had no effect on the state�s budget situation.
Weintraub is charitable here, characterizing Bustamante as merely ignorant of the budget facts. I doubt it. More likely he is just doing what has become natural for a politician, he's lying to score political points. It's the great lesson Democrats seems to have learned from the Clinton experience over the last 10-12 years -- lying works and is completely legitimate -- it all goes to serve cause of those who are battling the vast right wing conspiracy, i.e. evil. It's the Clintonian ethos -- if the polls show you can't tell the truth, then what you'll have to do is you'll "just have to win" to quote Bill Clinton.
Sometimes it isn't easy believing the truth -- for example, every instinct in your body wants to believe something better of politicians. But in this case, I think we've come to the point where we have to put those idealistic instints aside, and admit that what our head is telling us is the truth.
Sidenote -- I've heard what Bustamante is saying many times, but never from members of the California public. Where I've heard it a dozen times is from East Coast journalists talking out of their *ss on cable television on a subject they seem to know nothing about -- California. Oh, and Paul Krugman was also spouting the same thing yesterday on Tim Russert. Lets see now, is Krugman an 1) economist?; 2) a journalist?; or 3) a Democrat party official. I'm not quite sure.
Howard Dean repeats the big lie about the California recall. Everyone -- everyone -- knows that Karl Rove and the Bush Whitehouse were not friendly to the idea of a recall. And neither were the elite of the California Republican party. Dean is just talking out of his ass here. I.e. he's doing what politicians were born to do. He's lying.
This is the best article on MECha that I've seen -- from a former MECha members and organization sympathizer. Of course, there's a dose of anti-Republican & anti-white bogusity here, but it's worth reading if you are at all interested in the MECha blowup.
An open letter to Matt Drudge from Shawn Perine -- Publisher, IronAge.
UPDATE: Robby Robinson has pulled this open letter from the "forum" section of his website.
UPDATE: You can read the letter here, along with a report of the details of the Drudge - Robinson radio interview.
Drudge with breaking Schwarzenegger news. This will be a campaign issue.
Joshua Claybourn has more on Bush. It looks to me like the Republican elite in Washington has jumped the shark.
"You shouldn't be governor unless you can pronounce the name of the state." -- Governor Gray Davis.
Mickey Kaus -- still playing catch up with PrestoPundit .. as is the Chronicle. The big question -- when will Kaus and the Chronicle run with this story? .. lets hope they aren't holding it for last few days before the election. The name in that story continues to be one of the top google searches finding PrestoPundit .. hmmm.
Remembering Upton Sinclair and the race of 1934. Quotable:
[Upton Sinclair] was a classic bohemian, subsisting mostly on brown rice, fruit and celery and so idealistic that journalist H.L. Mencken identified him as believing in more things than any other man alive.
Sounds a bit like Governor Davis, except for the bohemian and idealism parts.
Google Search: Nativo Lopez, who has advocated seperatism in the past -- was among the honored dignitary Friday at Gray Davis's licences for illegals signing ceremony. California Insider has the latest on Nativo Lopez here.
The Fresno Bee got the Democrat talking points memo -- headlines illegals story "Immigrants can legally drive".
SacBee -- the Fair Political Practices Commission must act now to hault Bustamante's use of illegally obtained campaign funds.
Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger stands by her man. Quotable:
[Arnold is] one of the most gracious, supportive, open-minded men I have ever met .. He has encouraged me at every step of my life. I've known him since I was 21 years old, and I know that I would not be where I am today in my career, as a woman, without his support."
Schwarzenegger says it again -- I made it up. Quotable:
He invented colorful stories, he said, to promote bodybuilding and his movie, "Pumping Iron." "I think that the '70s was a totally different era. ... " he said. "You said outrageous things to make the headlines in the newspapers, to build up the sport. Even in that movie, I said a lot of things that were not true."
Jill Stewart fisks the "big lie" -- the talking points memo which tells Democrats to talk about "immigrants" every time they are asked a question about illegals. Quotable:
in-depth state audit showed only 19% of illegals bother to file taxes, and the best data on illegal immigrants, from the late 1990s National Science Foundation study, shows that each citizen-headed household in California pays out a net extra $1,178 to shore up 3 million mostly low-income illegal immigrants.
It is also worth pointing out that foreign born workers drain $10 billion dollars out of the California economy every year -- sending it back home to Mexico. As an industry, this cash is Mexico's 2nd leading source of income.
And don't miss Stewart on workers comp at the end of the article. This is must read stuff, including this mind-bending fact:
Costco operates in 36 states in the U.S., but 70 percent of its workers compensation costs come from California.
Xlrq is ready to sign the licences for legals only referendum.
Priorities & Frivolities fisks Tim Rutten & the Times on the MECHa blowup.
Here is the leftist organization that was protesting Schwarzenegger yesterday. The press never gives the leftist backstory on these protest groups.
Schwarzenegger on the licences for illegals bill:
The California Legislature has now voted to give drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. If Gray Davis signs this bill, I will lead the fight to repeal it as governor. I am an immigrant. I waited for ten years to get my American citizenship. And I know first-hand how immigrants who come to this country and obey the laws have struggled to achieve their dreams. I am pro-immigrant. But we should not invite fraud or undermine law enforcement. The federal government has expressed security concerns over this measure, and in a time of heightened national security, we should not undermine our nation's immigration laws.
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
Here are Schwarzenegger's two new radio spots. One is an endorsement by the Howard Jarvis Assoc. The other spot encourages folks to register for the vote. Interesting.
Schwarzenegger speaks on fixing California's business killing laws before the California Chamber of Commerce, which endorsed Schwarzenegger's run for governor of the state. This is fairly interesting, because it is highly unusual for the Chamber to make an endorsements in gubernatorial elections, the Chamber said it made an exception in this case because the state is so in need of leadership on economic issues.
(Sidenote -- a NY Times article on this event mis-identifies Dana Point as Laguna Beach. Make up your own joke about hapless NY Times stringers & editors here).
Schwarzenegger lays out plans for reform during a Riverside press conference. And here's another article on the event.
Newsmax -- Driver License Bill Opens Door to Voter Fraud and Illegal Gun Sales. Quotable:
Tom McClintock said Thursday Colorado has already passed a law rejecting the validity of California driver's licenses should Gov. Davis sign the bill. He said the law means California licenses could no longer be used for identification or driving in Colorado after the California bill takes effect next year.
"It has loopholes big enough to fly a 747 through .. ". Gray Davis signs state licenses for illegals bill. Here is coverage from the Washington Post; and from the AP; and the SacBee. More at Rough & Tumble, which is all over the recall story like a case of chickenpox.
Debra Saunders wants proof that Schwarzenegger knows what it means to be an adult.
Requiring the DMV to issue a driver's license or ID card merely on the basis of the applicant providing a 'receipt' from the INS that an application or petition for lawful immigration status has been initiated is an invitation for fraud. Moreover, the states of Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas all require that a social security number be provided to their Department of Motor Vehicles. California should not embrace a weaker standard than those imposed by other southern border states. While I applaud the public safety concerns this bill seeks to address, it ignores the fact that California has made substantial efforts to make the driver's license a more secure form of identification. There is no question that a driver's license is often the key document used to acquire other documentation and to qualify for various services and services.
-- Gray Davis, one year ago, using the veto on a drivers licences for illegals bill with much stonger security checks than this years bill, which the Governor will sign tonight.
This is actually no joke. There is not one human check anywhere in the system to stop this from happening. And consider this - there is not a single check in the system to stop this card with this picture on it from having your name name on it. And under the motor voter law, Osama would be handed a voter registration form -- and according to all of the officials in charge interviewed by KFI yesterday, no one would ever check the validity of the application, nor would any person check to validate the citizenship of the applicant. Osama bin Laden could very easily be voting in the 2004 Presidential election, and no one would know it, nor do anything to prevent it from happening. (image via Conservative Crust. Revised at the suggestion of the comments section.)
UPDATE: Schwarzenegger will fight to overturn the law.
Schwarzenegger needs to set this straight:
"TW: "Would you ever give up acting if you went into politics?"AS: I would try to do movies at night and run the state during the day."
The last thing California needs is another Jesse Ventura, who didn't understand that being Governor wasn't just another money making publicity gig.
UPDATE: The quote is from a month or so before Schwarzenegger announced his campaign for governor.
Mickey�Kaus catches up with PrestoPundit:
Schwarzenegger's Defense: 'I'm a Huge Liar!' He now says, of his 1977 Oui interview:"I made statements that were crazy, statements that�a lot of them were not true and just exaggerated situations. ...I knew they would get headlines."
I believe him! The more you think about it, the more Arnold's boasting to Oui smells like pure PR BS-ing. Schwarzenegger, remember, was determined to rid bodybuilding of its homosexual image. So he comes up with a group gangbang incident--not only is he straight, but all the guys in the gym were straight! And the girls giving hummers backstage at the Mr. Olympia contest--that's just too good. Also well-targeted. ('Mom, I want to be a bodybuilder!') ... The "BS" theory doesn't get AS off the hook, but it's revealing in a different way. We know what he's been willing to do to get what he wants. ...His recent accounts of the interview have consistently pointed to the "BS" explanation, and they've been fairly consistent, despite the LAT's straining to find a big contradiction.
Leftist -- and MacArthur "genius" -- Mike Davis on California and the recall. If anyone gets the time to do a proper fisking of this, give me a heads up. I'd like to read it. (via LA Observed)
Fresh Potatoes attends the recall debate. This is by far the best thing I've read on the debate. Very much worth a read.
California Leads U.S. in Foreign Born:
Seven California cities, led by Santa Ana, are among the nation's top 10 ranked by percentage of foreign-born residents, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Wednesday.Based on a 2002 survey, the bureau estimates that 48% of Santa Ana's population is foreign-born .. Ranking behind Santa Ana were Los Angeles, with 41% of the population foreign-born; Anaheim, 40%, and San Francisco, 37%. Also among the top 10 were San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego.
Democrat George Skelton:
Davis' single biggest blooper, the one that later sustained a recall rally for Republicans? It was his spending $9 million on attack ads in last year's GOP gubernatorial primary to flatten the Republican candidate he feared most, former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan.Meddling in the other party's primary so overtly and heavy-handedly was unprecedented in California. But what made this so egregious was not that it was dastardly. It was just dumb.
In effect, Davis chose his own opponent for November � political novice Bill Simon Jr. This grated on Republicans. But worse, voters abhorred their choices.
The voter turnout was a record low, only half those registered. When people who did show up were asked in a Times exit poll why they voted for their candidate, the most frequent response � by 34% of those surveyed � was, "He's the best of a bad lot."
So these days when Davis argues that he won reelection "fair and square" only 10 months ago and therefore it's "unfair" to boot him, many reply: That was not a fair election. Davis rigged it. Our choices were lousy. We demand another election.
David Horowitz, blogger:
At 22 elite schools we found that during a ten year period not a single Republican or conservative had been invited to address the graduating class of any one. At the same time 173 leftists and Democrats were selected to be commencement speakers.
This is truly insidious:
The new [U. of Michigan] process includes a "diversity essay" in which applicants must choose from one of two topics on which to write. In the first topic, the applicant must describe how his or her acceptance into the university would contribute to "an academically superb and widely diverse educational community." If the applicant chooses the second option, he or she must describe a personal experience in which "cultural diversity -- or a lack thereof" changed the applicant's life.
Didn't Orwell describe a process much like this in 1984? The University isn't there to serve you. Instead, you are there to serve it.
What Bustamante's gas regulation proposal would really mean -- the Knowledge Problem.
Virginia Postrel on the race to replace:
The newspaper coverage suggests that the debate was pretty ritualistic and thus a pretty good event to skip. But that doesn't mean Arnold can get away with his current, "Elect me, I'm a movie star businessman and I love California" platform indefinitely. He says he'll be a leader if elected, but he won't be able to lead anything other than calisthenics if he gets elected without telling voters how he'd make policy--and budget--tradeoffs. Eventually he'll have to make someone mad, and it will be easier to get away with that as governor if he can point to something of a mandate.
Gray Davis ignored warnings that the Workers Comp system was turning into a business killing disaster.
Dianne Feinstein launched a morals attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger tonight on the Chris Mathews show, expressing moral indignation at the possiblity that the sexual lifestyle of the former body builder might have included an episode of "group sex" thirty years ago. A bit surprising coming from the Democrat and former mayor of San Francisco.
Alan Reynolds remembers price controls on gasoline during the 1970s -- and concludes that Cruz Bustamante isn't fit to hold public office.
Pat Buchanan attacks the Schwarzenegger "sellouts" -- according to Buchanan conservative who support Schwarzenegger are the equivalent of prostitutes.
George Will -- expect some really ugly late hits in the race to replace. Quotable:
Ken Khachigian, a veteran Republican strategist, warns that Schwarzenegger should brace himself for what has become the Democrats' trademark tactic. In football it is penalized as a ``late hit,'' but in politics it is often rewarded with success.George W. Bush received such a hit in the final weekend of the 2000 campaign -- the revelation of his drunk driving arrest 24 years earlier. That probably contributed to an unusual development: Late-deciding voters, who usually break against the incumbent party, broke for Vice President Gore in 2000.
California Republicans have experienced late hits three times in the last 11 years. In 1992, Bruce Herschensohn narrowly lost a Senate race against Barbara Boxer when it was revealed on the Friday before the election that he and his girlfriend and another couple had visited a strip club. In 1994, Michael Huffington narrowly lost a Senate race against Feinstein when, a few days before the election, it was revealed that he had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. In 1998, Darrell Issa -- he is now a congressmen; his $1.6 million funding of the recall petition drive produced this recall election -- lost a Senate primary when it was revealed that he had embellished his military record.
A late hit by the Davis campaign against Schwarzenegger cannot come so late that there is no time for another such hit, one against Davis' other problem, Bustamante. This could get even uglier.
27% of those living in California were not born in America. Of course, these percentages do not include the American born children of the foreign born. My understanding is that something like 1/2 of all school kids in California are not the children of American born residents. Here is the U.S. Census Bureau press release.
Make no mistake, California is truly ground zero of America's foreign born population explosion -- of all foreign born people living in the U.S., a full 28% live in California.
More census data. 21% of Californians over the age of 24 don't have a high school degree. 41% of Californians speak a language other than English. Remarkably, with so many non-American born residents without an education living in California, only 13% of the population is officially categorized by the government as living in poverty. (And as study after study shows, most of those folks have TVs, VCRs, microwaves, air conditioning, etc. etc. -- luxuries for most of those living in the countries where so many of those in poverty are from).
And this -- 27% of those residing in California speak Spanish in the home.
Finally, one more -- but first consider the fact that the additional income from a working spouse's paycheck is usually just enough to cover the increase in tax on working families which have been imposed since the days of the single earner families of the 1950s. Ok, here's the stat. 57% of children under the age of six in California are parented by parents who both work. And this is below the nation average.
There is not a single Republican on the MIT faculty -- David Horowitz and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture report on our one ideology, our one party colleges and universities.
A bill which will make identity theft as easy as pie will soon be law in California. But that's not all. This bill will also let any -- any -- foreign terrorist get a valid California drivers licence, just as simple as pie. Why is the legislature doing this? It's a play for votes in the narrow interest game of California power politics. And -- that"s right -- you're a racist if you don't t think any of this is a good idea, and you're willing to challenge the elite who dominate the major newspapers and the Democratic party.
Bustamante -- the Democratic party isn't doing enough to chase business out of California.
Jesse Ventura defends his record as governor .. and has some advice for California voters.
Get out there and retaliate against the status quo-loving, power-hungry, pandering career politicians and do it with a vengeance. Tell them you are sick and tired of them spending your money to accomplish nothing and then blaming it on the other party.... Believe me, Democrats and Republicans will break laws, take campaign contributions from anybody, slander, lie, cheat, conspire in defense of their power. And, more often than not, they will enjoy the compliance of the popular media in their quest to maintain their exclusivity.
Schwarzenegger on the "gangbang" -- I made it up. Quotable:
"I made statements that were crazy, statements that � a lot of them were not true and just exaggerated situations," he told NBC's Channel 4. "I knew they would get headlines. We were promoting bodybuilding, we were promoting [the 1976 documentary] 'Pumping Iron.' "
A long piece on Bustamante and MECHa. (via Instapundit)
Worth quoting:
I think Bustamante's refusal to [follow the campaign financing law] raises important questions about his commitment to the rule of law generally, and whether this would set a precedent for how he would act as governor.
Lefty historian Rick Perlstein on Orange County and the California recall.
Thomas Sowell endorses Schwarzenegger for Governor. Worth quoting:
The big problem is that, even if Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes governor, the state legislature will still be in the hands of liberal-left Democrats, who think that they can impose all sorts of regulations, red tape and ever higher taxes on businesses and productive citizens without worrying about who will leave the state.What could a Governor Schwarzenegger do about that? He could veto reckless spending bills and -- more important -- use the bully pulpit of his veto messages to educate the public to what is going on and to the fact that there is no free lunch.
Although he would be stuck with filling out the remaining years of Gray Davis' term, he would not be stuck with the current state legislature for all that time, since there will be legislative elections during the governor's term. Educating the voter might affect those elections.
See and listen to Tom McClintock on the cable networks and on talk radio. Why isn't the Schwarzenegger campaign making this stuff available?
A long interview with Tom McClintock. (via Angry Clam)
California's Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is now a desperate candidate making audacious claims ... John Fund's California Diary. Quotable:
The parents I spoke with couldn't help but note the irony of Mr. Bustamante going against Hispanic parents who want their children to learn English. A profile in the Orange County Register pointed out that Mr. Bustamante's parents "would not speak Spanish in his household when he was young" so that he could learn English. Mr. Bustamante has accomplished a lot, including becoming the first statewide Latino officeholder in over 100 years. "But since 45% of Latino kids don't graduate from high school, one wonders where he would be today if his father hadn't insisted on an English-only approach," says Ms. Montelongo. "Why is he opposing parents who have their own idea on how best their children can succeed?"
Schwarzenegger for Governor co-chairman Abel Maldonado -- does his support for Schwarzenegger really make him "anti-Latino"? One race organization thinks so.
Priorities & Frivolities investigates a Bustamante appearance at a MECHa sponsored event two years ago. Quotable Bustamante (from the Modesto Bee) in 2001:
In his short 15-minute speech, [Bustamante] told the crowd that people of all races should celebrate Cesar Chavez Day. "It is not just for Latinos, it is for everyone who believes in dignity, justice for workers and humanity," he said. He pointed out that the new census results show that non-Hispanic whites no longer are a majority in California. "It is maybe a time in California when we should call each other Californians without other labels," he said.
Why is Schwarzenegger going with the Sept. 17 debate, and not tomorrow's Walnut Creek debate? Three reasons. First. The Sept. 17 debate will be statewide and an all-media event, while the Walnut Creek event won't be. Reason number two. The first half of the Walnut Creek "debate" is a retain Gray Davis media event. And the third reason? Arnold doesn't want Arianna Huffington knocking over his microphone again.
Go Left young man -- and win yourself a "get out of jail free" card for any racist stain on your record. Shelby Steele can explain what this is all about.
Mickey�Kaus -- Bustamante has yet to come clean. Why won't he denounce and renounce MECHa's racist propoganda -- and his participation in that organization? Is it simply a lack of guts?
California's corrupt union-government theft machine -- blame Jerry Brown.
Don't miss Hugh Hewitt on lefty hack Patt Morrison and Los Angeles's official Democrat Party newspaper.
Separated at birth?
UPDATE: Was it triplets? Don't miss the link in the comments section.
Bruce Bartlett on Cruz Bustamante and price controls. Quotable:
If Mr. Bustamante is really concerned about gasoline prices, he should look at California�s 50.8-cent per gallon gasoline tax�4th highest in the U.S.
See also the Mercury News "Bustamante needs Econ 101" and the SacBee "Bustamante's Folly".
Whalen on Bustamante -- the Peter Principle in action, or mediocrity-on-the-march.
Schwarzenegger goes with Kaus's tall tales defense. Quotable Arnold:
"This was the time when we were promoting body building and pumping iron and the more outrageous we were, the more we made the headlines that promoted the sport."
Worth quoting -- California Insider :
I don�t know of anyone who seriously believes that Bustamante supports, or ever supported, the creation of a separate Chicano nation on land to be taken back from the United States. But he does support ethnic-identity politics in the here and now, in a way that is insidious, in a fashion that works its way into everything he stands for and represents as a politician.
The whole thing is worth a read.
I still think he has created an unnecessary buzz around the campaign, a message that is repeated so often and so widely that it must be reaching the electorate: he is unwilling or unable to answer tough questions. By extension, the message is that he is unprepared to govern.
I can confirm that average folks in the general public have gotten the message that Schwarzenegger is short on specifics or plans -- and that this perception is shaping their views of the candidate. But those I've talked to seem to think that Schwarzenegger is doing this intentionally. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Schwarzenegger may be setting people up with low expectations for his make or break debate Sept. 17.
Mickey Kaus has interviewed Joe Gold, who says women in the early 1970's weren't even allowed in his gym. Kaus raises the very likely possibility that Schwarzenegger was simply telling sex tales for the benefit of the heavy breathing audience of a dirty magazine.
John & Ken & Arnold live and commercial free on KFI Los Angeles -- tomorrow.
Shark Blog google checks MECHa and compares the national socialism of the Germans with the national socialism of the MEChas.
The new Peter King "On the Recall" column is up! Value added: zero! ... My favorite piercing insight:"Finally, there is the Arnold factor. The sense is that a lot of Californians don't yet know quite what to make of Schwarzenegger, the self-proclaimed populist with a personal fortune worth some $200 million."
How pathetic is it that the best thing LAT editor John Carroll could think of doing during the recall was to find a guy who had nothing to say and give him a twice a week column!
Rep. Ray Haynes and other California Republicans make the choice between McClintock and Schwarzenegger. Quotable Haynes:
"I'm at the point," he said, "of saying to McClintock, 'Show you can bring the resources to the table to win, or get out of the way.' "
Fed generated inflation erodes wages -- and heavy-handed Keynesian policies give us the worst recovery record since the failed recovery policies of Hoover - Roosevelt.
(Almost) the complete coast of California in photos -- brought to you by "No on Recall...Yes on Bustamente". (Really). Check out this photo of San Franscisco.
Here is where I got married.
And my daughter loves this place.
California -- gotta love it.
(link via Pathetic Earthlings)
Tacitus has been on the MECHA - Bustamante watch since the story broke two weeks ago. What does Bustamante think of MECHa and it's racist philosophy? Well, for more than a week we never got a straight answer to the question -- and Tacitus has all of these non-answers posted on his blog. And then, finally, this:
On Fox News on Saturday, Bustamante was asked whether he renounced a slogan of the group: "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing." He responded that he loved his culture and would represent the entire state if he became governor. "My politics ... have grown to a point where I'm a very inclusive individual, and all you have to do is look at the politics I've shared and the kind of politics that I've had," Bustamante said. When pressed a fourth time for a more direct answer, Bustamante said, "Racial separatism is wrong... You have to look at what people do, not just what they say, and I think I've demonstrated my ability."
Tacitus comments:
It shouldn't take multiple tries over eight days to drag a straightforward denunciation of MEChA's more reprehensible beliefs from someone. Unless that someone is a Democratic candidate, I guess. This story is over as far as I'm concerned. When I raised the MEChA issue exactly two weeks ago, I said that Cruz Bustamante needed to face the resultant questions "squarely and publicly." It was a logical request and a simple test.He failed it.
"The voters are angry". The Contra Costa Times takes a tour of the state and gets a read on the pulse of the people of California. Quotable:
"[The recall] sends a clear message to politicians that if they don't do a good job, they will be kicked out of office," said Dave Horsley, who cuts hair at the Lincoln City Barber Shop in Placer County. "If I did a bad job of cutting hair, my customers would fire me. Why should we keep a governor who has done a bad job of running the state?"
Rahnold Scwharzenreagan. Lou Cannon does another is Schwarzenegger like Reagan piece.
Hugh Hewitt has a long thought piece on the recall. Worth a look.
What candidate Ronald Reagan could teach candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger about running for governor of California.
Danial Weintraub talks with historian Ken Star:
Instead of a petulant partisan jihad, Starr now sees the eruption of a political volcano, a legitimate citizen movement reacting to a disconnect between the governors (not just Davis) and the governed."The culture of politics, the appropriations, the hearings, the budget proposals, the whole apparatus of California government is basically 18th century in origin," Starr said. "It's become a self-perpetuating system, in both Republican and Democratic circles.
"On the other hand, people are getting information on a 24-7 basis. They're used to feedback. They're used to things being changed. They're used to laying down databases. Everything moves very rapidly, and people want that from their government as well."
But beginning with the dot-com crash in 2000, government hasn't seemed to work very well at all. We have gone from an energy crisis to a budget crisis to a political crisis. And Californians who came here craving something special or were born into the state's heightened sense of self are shaken by such failures.
"People are personally offended when California doesn't work," Starr said ..
Starr thinks that no matter who wins, the activism reflected in the recall will not soon subside. Voters, he predicts, are going to demand the very sort of structural reform about which experts have been talking for years but which the politicians, wedded to competing interest groups, have refused to enact.
"We have earned it and we will get it," he said, "either through representative politics or back at the ballot box again. We are past the point of no return." He predicts the voters won't be fooled by half-measures or platitudes.
"There was an old saying in vaudeville: Never follow a dog act with a dog act," Starr said. "The people are tired of dog acts. There has to be a new act, the re-founding, the rebuilding of this state."
Starr says the current period is reminiscent of 1879, when California tore up its original constitution and started over, and of the Progressive Era during which the state adopted the tools of direct democracy, including the recall, that have come to be a cornerstone of our political system. Today the defining characteristic, he says, is the lack of faith in big institutions, and the desire to break down the hierarchies that rule our world.
The Internet and other new technologies are a transforming force behind that trend. The World Wide Web has leveled the traditional barriers to information that once forced citizens to depend on opinion leaders for their news.
"We are getting ready for the 21st century, getting ready for the destiny that history has given us," he said. "California is the epicenter of creativity in so many fields, and it has got to have a government equal to its creativity. The people understand that. They don't want to be bothered with the details. They just want it done."
A Tom McClintock profile. Quotable:
And if he does end up splitting votes, allowing Bustamante to win? How would he feel then? McClintock falters for the only time in the interview. "I guess I, uh I would, uh I don't believe it will occur. I have great confidence in the people's ability to work through the issues and make the right decision."
California tax rates -- not yet the worst in the nation. And here is the web site of the California Taxpayers' Association.
Recall the legislature -- The California Budget Deficit Prevention Act.
"We're Not Gonna Take It. No, we ain't gonna take it. We're not going to take it anymore." -- bang your head for Arnold.
Mickey Kaus fact checks the LA Times, and goes rhetorical:
Is the L.A. Times a) "objectively' reporting on a campaign controversy or b) bending over backwards to exonerate Latino activists, either out of political correctness, or because it's terrified of alienating a large group of potential readers, or as part of its near-monolithic Bustamante-boosting coverage? You make the call! ... Would the Times show similar tolerance for, say, an anti-bilingual site that reprinted a document containing the slogan, "For Anglos, Everything. For non-Anglos, Nothing"?" ...
Like a terrier with a rat Hugh Hewitt shakes the living daylights out of the LA Times for its continually biased coverage of the race to replace.
Danial Weintraub on Peter Ueberroth's uninspiring campaign for governor.
Newsweek runs with Kaus's dirty magazine interview story.
Rev. Louis Sheldon writes letter demanding to know more Schwarzenegger's sex details.
Greenspan defends Fed ad hockery and argues that today's deregulated economy can better handle "shocks" than the more highly regulated economy of the past. And Greenspan defends the Fed's decision to continue fueling the bubble economy of the late 1990s with artificially low interest rates -- trust me, Greenspan's argument is don't miss stuff. Greenspan was speaking at the Kansas City Fed. Conference proceedings will be published here.
Mickey Kaus and Matt Drudge can mud wrestle for the scoop on this one -- a BBC documentary titled "Made in Britain" interviewed an actress named Gigi Goyette who claims to have had a seven year "outercourse" affair with Schwarzenegger. Take it away Mickey and Matt. The Guardian has the story here. The Evening Standard's account is here. And
here is a blog entryon the story; and another one here. Now I think I'll go take a shower.
Schwarzenegger finally has a full service campaign website. Here is Schwarzenegger's agenda. And here are the official press releases of the Schwarzenegger campaign.
Where does Schwarzenegger stand on the issues? Find out here.
Finally, here is a list of those who have endorsed Schwarzenegger in his campaign for governor of California.
�I am disgusted, appalled, revolted, sickened, disturbed and troubled� -- Gloria Allred attacks Schwarzenegger.
Calif. Lt. Gov. Defends Past Ties to Radical Group
-- Reuters.
California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante today said he is considering renouncing ties to a racist organization which persists in judging a person by the color of his skin .."I don't know if can stay with a group that promotes racial division," said Mr. Bustamante. "How can I, in good conscience, remain a member of the Democrat party?"
Fisking the Chronicle's whitewash of Bustamante's racist past. Somehow seeing racism in a Chicano-seperatist organization is possible only if you're one of those not-to-be-taken seriously "conservatives". The bias at the Chronicle is beyond parody -- who needs Scrappleface, when the leftist bias is simply laughable?
A Ronald Reagan reality check:
Bill Bagley was a Republican assemblyman then. "Ronald Reagan came in in 1967 after the campaign where he was going to cut, squeeze and trim that terrible budget in Sacramento. First thing he did was raise taxes." In fact, Reagan increased his budget by 100% from $4.6 billion to $10 billion during his first term.
Opposition researchers do the leg work for newspaper "reporters". This, folks, is the inside story on how papers like the Chronicle come up with their "news".
The LA Times provides cover for Bustamante and his ties to MEChA.
California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres labels Schwarzenegger a "sexual predator" and a "misogynist" in radio interview.
McClintock won't be in the voters guide.
Sen. Tom McClintock faces one of a candidate's worst nightmares, finding himself not included in the official state voters guide. A state appeals court, then the state supreme court ruled against McClintock's request for inclusion, saying the Northridge Republican didn't do his paperwork correctly. McClintock's lawyer said the senator checked a box where candidates refuse to accept voluntary spending limits, not knowing that it also keeps candidates out of the voters guide scheduled for printing on Sunday.
Paid signature gatherers were among the crowd of about 2,000 people who showed up Thursday at a Fresno shopping mall parking lot to rally in support of actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Republican's aides have promised an aggressive voter registration drive and workers from a company called American Petitions signed up hundreds.
Arnold flashes his big blue lapis lazuli ring.
"Schwarzenegger has etched out a public image, through accouterments, that says: I am bigger than you. I am richer than you. I am stronger, luckier, lustier .. Schwarzenegger always has worn the clothes of a company man dressed for casual Friday. The bold jewelry, however, suggests that he owns the company."
More on the style of California politics here. And this:
[Bob] White says Kathleen Brown .. telephoned him with an urgent campaign suggestion after seeing Schwarzenegger on TV:"Tell Arnold to take off the big blue ring. Tell him to dump the ring."
Schwarzenegger sex interviewer Peter Manso and a rape survivor advocate sift through the Arnold rumour muck on leftwing talk radio. Quotable Manso:
I know that on very good account that six, seven, eight years ago, Arnold bought up for the sum of $1 million the rights of film "pumping iron" and all the outtakes for that film- the cinema verite film- These guys constantly had the camera running in Golds gym. I'm told that the outtakes of the film really chronicle the very orgies that Arnold talks about in the interview. Now, why would Arnold, rich as he is, peel off a million bucks to buy up the rights a half dozen years ago if he wasn't anticipating a political run sooner or later. I'll leave the answer to that question to your audience.
(via L.A. Observed)
Instapundit is also giving big play to the MECHa - Bustamante story. Quotable:
ROBERT TAGORDA WONDERS if Cruz Bustamante isn't using the MEChA issue to energize Latino voters.Hmm. Makes the parallel to race-baiting Southern politicians of previous generations all the stronger, doesn't it? Bustamante may indeed be trying to use racism in an effort to win election. The question is, why are the Democrats going along? The answer, I guess, is that they care more about winning than they do about racism.
LA Times columnist Peter H. King has signed on as a campaign writer for the Gray Davis team at the Davis web site -- home of the famed Mrs. Davis blog.
UPDATE: Actually, the Davis campaign has signed up King, but King has NOT signed up (contractually) with them, and the LA Times is not happy --L.A. Observed fact checks PrestoPundit:
The official No on Recall website -- the one with Sharon Davis' diary -- has picked up the latest Peter King column from the L.A. Times op-ed page without labeling it as from the paper. Campaign sites link to favorable press coverage all the time, but this time it's misleading. It appears on the same page of links as Gray Davis' UCLA speech, so someone who doesn't know that King is a Times staffer could mistake the unlabeled column for a campaign product. It's compounded by the credit line: "Peter H. King's twice-weekly column will run through the recall election." Anti-Davis blogger Prestopundit appears to have been taken in. Former Bee staffer Dave Jensen (The Condor) too. Also, isn't there a copyright issue with a campaign grabbing an entire column, not just excerpts and a link?
And here's the comment posted to L.A. Observed:
Hi Kevin -- thanks for the tip. I spoke with Jeremy Thompson, who is responsible for the no-recall and Davis websites. I explained that they cannot use our articles without our permission and told him to take them down.Posted by: K Goller at August 29, 2003
UPDATE: And here is The Condor on the King flap:
Never assume. Never assume. Never assume. Yours truly did, and I am very embarrassed.I assumed the Peter King column on the Gray Davis site was legitimately posted by the Davis campaign. It was not. The Davis campaign has now removed it from its site.
As it turns out, King's column is being done for the Los Angeles Times. The Davis campaign apparently lifted it from the Times site and presented the article as work done for the campaign. There was no indication on the Davis site that King's work had originated elsewhere.
Debra Saunders on the bill which will give California drivers licences to foreign criminals.
"The students who are MeCHA today are just like the students when I was there. Pretty much they are trying to get an education .. I think the actuality of what takes place in those organizations is to provide student leadership. For me, and many, many others, we were running for student government. That's how I got here today."
Here's a MeCHa watch web page. And at hispanicvista.com you will find opposing views on the significance of MeCHa and Bustamante's past affiliations with this group. Sharkblog characterizes the racist and statist platform of MeCHa as national socialism.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association endorses Schwarzenegger.
2,204,500 Californians fled the state between 1995 and 2000, part of a national red state to blue state migration revolution as citizens vote with their feet against life in the high tax, high cost red states.
UPDATE: PresoPundit color coding: Red = left dominated. Blue = true blue liberty loving America. The television networks are conciously practicing political spin by reversing these colors -- at least it's a likely guess.
UPDATE: It's estimated that 2.3 million illegals have moved into the state of California. Do the math.
UPDATE: Bound in a Nutshell does a fisking.
Whalen on Schwarzenegger's 1977 gangbang interview.
In a return to the economic thinking of the early 1970's Cruz Bustamante calls for price controls on gasoline .
Bustamante refuses to renounce his racist past. Follow the story here. Michelle Malkin's article gives background on the story.
Movie fanatics to vote any body but Arnold. An interview with the President of theArnoldFans.com .
Why is California in trouble? According to the unofficial Democratic Party newspaper in Los Angeles, it's because we aren't taxed to death quite enough:
When, at last week's news conference, [Schwarzenegger] placed Proposition 13 and tax increases hors de combat for the duration of his campaign, he tagged himself as yet another politician unwilling to reexamine the self-destructive policies that have brought the state to its sorry pass.
-- Michael Hiltzik, The LA Times
Here's my California recovery program -- give a lifetime Paris fellowship to the entire leftie / Democratic Party press contingent, along with a similar fellowhip to 40,000 or 50,000 of the leftie academics who train budding journalists to think this way. Somehow these folks believe that a new Republican governor should be the tax collector for a corrupt union controlled government -- and everyone not on the government payroll should work two jobs to pay for this corruption. Give me a flippin' break.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND... � MEDIA LIES�. Among those recently exposed is � �We don�t know what Arnold Schwarzenegger stands for!� Well, yesterday Arnold went down a list of key issues on Sean Hannity�s radio show and guess what? Not a single surprise. He�s a moderate (more liberal on social issues, more conservative on the fiscal side). We knew his positions all along. In fact anyone living in California with even a passing interest in these matters (like a political reporter, for instance) should have known them because they have barely changed for decades. But no�we were warned there could be dangerous revelations here. The problem is�it�s hard to imagine what those revelations could have been.So we were, in essence, lied to by a nebulous, self-serving consortium of media types anxious to have us read their papers and watch their TV shows. No surprise there either�and harmless enough. In fact, they seem to have done Arnold a favor�it was so easy to prove them wrong. Not that he appears to need this. His campaign seemed like a winner from the outset and still does.
What is truly interesting about the debate over what AS needs to answer is that the questions the Dems and McClintock want AS to answer are not the questions on California voters' minds. It still is about the car tax and a collapsing state budget and service structure. There is a page one story in this morning's Wall Street Journal, for example, on how the "California Crises Take a Heavy Toll On State Colleges." The inability to get into these collegses, their rising costs and rotten course offerings --now those are issues that all relate back to the crazy priorities of a Sacramento ruled by special interests that don't care about the state college and community college systems.While some who will vote to remove Gray Davis will do so because of social issues, the vast majority of those giving him the boot will be doing so because of his utter ineptness in managing the state's finances and his corrupt handling of the sacramento power brokers. Listen again to my interview with AS over at www.870krla.com, and you will hear him address this theme again and again. It is the key theme, and he is pounding away at it. No wonder the Dems don't like the answers he is giving: They are the answers that voters in California want to hear.
The Washington Times -- Peter Ueberroth, quit the race. Quote: "His blandness and lack of energy will not do."
Tom McClintock hosts the Roger Hedgecock show Thursday afternoon, between 3-6 pm.
Volunteer here for the Schwarzenegger campaign. Or join the McClintock team here.
The only news story posted at Schwarzenegger's campaign web site. Right now it's all about securing the Republican base and energizing the tax revolters behind the recall movement.
Schwarzenegger -- the CATO Institute's dream candidate. So says Fresh Potatoes.
42% of American's want Schwarzenegger to be governor of their own state. But Arnold can forget about ever being President. An overwhelming majority of American's oppose changing the Constitution so that Schwarzenegger could run for the highest office in the land.
Schwarzenegger smashes through the 40% glass ceiling -- leads Cruz Buz 45% - 29%, in the first poll taken since Simon bailed out of the race to replace. An amazing 64% want Davis out of there. McClintock is still in double digets at 11%. Significantly, only 2% of voters are undecided on the race to replace. Note well, these poll numbers reflect respondents who said that they are certain to vote.
Schwarzenegger takes the pledge -- barring a state emegency Schwarzenegger pledges he will not raise taxes and there will be no new taxes in California. Hear Schwarzenegger take this pedge on link below to his interview with Sean Hannity.
Kausfiles spreads the news of Schwarzenegger dirt dug up in an old Oui magazine sex and drugs interview from 1977 -- dirt first posted on EBAY. Smoking Gun has the full interview here. It's a bit surprising to see Kaus doing a job usually carried out by the Chronicle. The vast left-wing conspiracy -- from Ebay, to Kaus, to Smoking Gun, to The Hollywood Reporter, to Drudge, to ... we'll next it will be the mainstream "news" press, right?
Here is Schwarzenegger on the Sean Hannity show. And here is the AP coverage of the interview. And here is the NY Times.
Worth quoting:
This election will show once and for all if there is a viable middle in California politics.
Hugh Hewitt slams the Chronicle and writes his own lead to the Hewitt interviews Schwarzenegger story.
Virginia Postrel on THE CALIFORNIA DISEASE. Quotable:
Here's an example of the sort of policy that has made California a place where it's hard to do business and even harder to buy a house. There's a reason Arnold keeps talking about regulation, even though regulation would seem to have no direct effect on the state budget crisis. People are leaving the state because it's too expensive and too hard climb the economic ladder. And by "people" I don't just mean native-born people. I keep meeting immigrants--the incredibly ambitious (and so far quite successful) Vietnamese guy who owns my nail salon, the Mexican guy who sold me my new cell phone--who left Southern California for Dallas because it's easier to live and do business in Texas.
Weintraub on McClintock and our criminally pathological state government. Quotable:
"I think the people of California are coming to the conclusion that if we don't bring the state's finances under control, if we don't restore the state's economy, the future is bleak.""
Superstar teacher Jaime Escalante signs up with team Schwarzenegger.
Dan Walters -- a legislature that deserves life behind bars.
Worth quoting:
The California Democratic Party is, for all intents and purposes, the organized labor party, and the California Labor Federation, under whose auspices the decision today was made, is the de facto central committee.
Molly Ivins, Robert Sheer and Maureen Dowd have recently written on Schwarzenegger and the California recall.
San Francisco's official Democrat party newspaper wants Schwarzenegger to provide more specifics. And they've looked everywhere and found other folks who also think so.
Marc Landy believes that Schwarzenegger is using "radical" rhetoric to advance "moderate" policies.
Schwarzenegger quotes from the "unofficial" Arnold for Governor web site.
Here is the C-SPAN video of Schwarzenegger's "economic summit" press conference.
Schwarzenegger on Roger Hedgecock's radio show. Listen to it here.
Priorities & Frivolities does a proper fisking of a Demo party talking points memo published as "news" in the Chronicle. You'll be seeing much more of this from Demos and Lefties -- in the press and elsewhere -- doing what it takes to weaken Schwarzenegger within his base -- the Republican party. And flat out dishonesty will be a common part of the package. Sad but true.
Walter Cronkite acknowledges -- and then whitewashes -- the Leftist / Demo party bias which we've been getting from CBS news and the national press for 50 years.
Right-Wing Vegetarian on Arnold on taxes:
My take: all worthless talk. Ahnold reminds me of Ross Perot, who would appeal to the brainless pissed off middle class voter by spewing generalities and platitudes about the problems that existed without ever offering a solution of his own.
The big race to replace question -- will Schwazenegger put something on the table before Oct. .. and can he stay credible if he doesn't? Without any specifics he can pound the table with the debates and any extended interview will be no cakewalk for Schwarzenegger.
One of the best race to replace bloggers isdamnum absque injuria. Special feature -- cadidate profiles of the down ballot governatorial hopefuls.
Schwarzenegger hits the campaign trail -- which in 2003 means talk radio.
Where California's radio talk hosts stand in the race to replace.
Schwarzenegger does the Hugh Hewitt show. Listen to it here.
Reagan speech writer Peter Robinson privides some race to replace analysis, based on his informal polling of National Review Online readers. A snippet:
Friday I asked California conservatives to let me know whether Arnold Schwarzenegger's news conference last Wednesday made them more or less inclined to support Der Arnold. I got dozens of emails [..] and I just spent an absorbing hour wading through them. The findings? One was predictable, the other startling.In the you-should-have-known department, my correspondents support Arnold by an overwhelming three-to-one.
The surprise? The reluctance with which most of them do so ..
And this:
"If McClintock can only convince conservatives that he has a chance of winning, support for Arnold could evaporate."
A couple problems with this. A good deal of the conservative political elite is already on board with Schwarzenegger. Second, most of these folks won't ever be convinced that McClintock has a chance of winning -- even if somehow he does.
Polling shows that "social conservatives" who take the position seriously enough to effect their vote on Schwarzenegger make up hardly a third of the Republican base -- i.e. they aren't even a majority among conservatives. Schwarzenegger has effectively reached emotional home with voters on the issues of taxes and business -- as focus groups in Riverside establish. The key areas were McClintock has an advantage over Schwarzenegger is on knowledge and to a lesser extent seriousness. McClintock has proven himself as a master of the budget and as a reliable combatant against the enemy of the citizen -- taxes. Schwarzenegger can only go on trust in these areas -- but here Schwarzenegger's believable emotion on these issues, and his forceful declared desire to take the reigns of leadership, somehow trump McClintock. And Schwarzenegger already is working with some of the best talent in the state on these problems, as his economic summit made clear. McClintock has helped lead a recall movement, but he's not had much room to provide leadership in Sacramento (where anti-tax and spend forces are incredibly weak), and he doesn't register on the passion and conviction scale as a public figure in the way Schwarzenegger can.
PulseWatch recall watch. Worth quoting:
.. leaning on McClintock will be tough. McClintock is part of a group of Prop. 13 babies known as the Cavemen, who came to the Capitol on a wave of tax revolt in the late 1970s and early 80s. (McClintock was first elected in 1982). He is dogmatic to the point of rigidity, and has always voted his conscience in his years in the Legislature, often against the wishes of the party. And there's little reason to believe he'd budge now for an untested political candidate ..
Another fisking -- this time Daniel Weintraub gets it from Brad DeLong. And California Insider seems to get a kick out of it.
Mickey�Kaus deconstructs fisks the LA Times coverage of the LA Times recall poll.
Bullsh*t on stilts. Graffiti is philosophy -- "crime is freedom", "worthless 'self=expression' is priceless art", "private property is tyranny", etc, etc., blah, blah, blah we've heard it all before -- more nihilistic worship of the criminal mentality from, oh guess who -- the Los Angeles Times. And -- your tax dollars at work -- an academic from back East. Boy he must be a smartie.
What daring and iconoclastic "cultural jammers" those LA Times editors are and how clever, unique and "subversive" is this academic -- just give me a fricken penny for every one -- and please oh please don't make me read another word of it. Ever. And, God help us, please Lord Almighty, somebody quit stuffing my Introduction to Philosophy texbooks with this, a, ripe brilliance. Only leads to grafitti .. of the "this is bullsh*t" variety.
"Holy s--. This guy may be just the next Ronald Reagan."
-- focus group guru Frank Luntz, after Schwarzenegger knocks 'em dead at a Republican race to replace focus group session in Riverside.
According to the reporter on the scene, this group of voters ".. seem blown away by Schwarzenegger".
RealClear Politics provides RealGood Punditry on its commentary page. Example:
Schwarzenegger did what he had to do yesterday in a very impressive news conference to kick off the substantive phase of his campaign. He was able to put to rest the background noise from last week that questioned his commitment to lower taxes and less government regulation. Just these few comments below on taxes will be enough to win over conservatives whose votes he will need to win: (video)Does that mean we are going to make cuts? Yes. Does this mean education is on the table? No. Does this mean I am willing to raise taxes? No. Additional taxes are the last burden we need to put on the backs of the citizens and businesses of California.
I feel the people of California have been punished enough. From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet they're taxed. When they go get a coffee they're taxed. When they get in their car they're taxed. When they go to the gas station they're taxed. When they go to lunch they're taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax.
Not only is this exactly what conservative voters want to hear, this message will resonant with millions of voters in the political middle who also feel they are overtaxed considering what they get in return from Sacramento.
When this anti-tax message is contrasted with Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's plan to raise taxes and fees a whopping 8 billion dollars it will work as a very powerful campaign message between now and October 7.
Lou Cannon -- dean of the California press corp -- on Reagan, California and the future of the Republican party. Quotable:
In the century before Mr. Davis took office, only three Democrats had served as governor. Beginning in 1952, Republican presidential candidates carried California in all but one election for four decades.Traditionally, recurrent defeats encourage political parties to become more inclusive. The state's Republican Party, however, remains firmly in the hands of social conservatives who have set themselves against the majority of Californians ..
Mr. Reagan was elected governor in 1966 after promising to "squeeze, cut, and trim" the budget, and he made some trims, to be sure. But he balanced the deficit he had inherited the old-fashioned way � by raising taxes.
In the first week of his governorship Mr. Reagan proposed a $1 billion tax increase, then the largest tax hike ever sponsored by any governor of any state. It was a relatively progressive proposal, too, imposing higher rate increases on banks and corporations than on individuals. The Reagan tax increase was equivalent to $5.3 billion in 2003 dollars.
In addition, Governor Reagan signed a permissive abortion-rights bill that was supported by most Republican legislators.
And Cannon's bottom line:
In this milieu, and in this field, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only candidate with the potential to be realistic about California's financial situation.
Arnold for Sale. Quotable:
Amazon.com has advertised a sale of 30 percent off a selection of "Arnold Schwarzenegger items" including DVD's of "Terminator," "Total Recall" and "Kindergarden Cop" and his books "Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder" and "Arnold's Bodybuilding for Men."
Here comes the mud! New report has it that Schwarzenegger's father was not just a Nazi, he was a stormtrooper -- a volunteer in the SA aka the notorious "brownshirts". Is this the work of Davis's "issues research" team? Time will tell.
Cut the punny business -- Fox News execs ban Schwarzenegger movie references.
Republicans - 47%; Bustamante - 35%; Undecided - 9%; Larry Flint - 1%.
LA Times Poll (pdf)
Schwarzenegger in this poll gets only 39% of the Republican vote -- real fallout from the ill-advised Buffett and Lowe appointments. One wonders how many of the 44% who polled "unfavorable" for Schwarzenegger are stanch Republicans not happy with Buffettology on property taxes -- or with Rob Lowe as "a senior Schwarzenegger advisor" (which turned out to be press spin on Lowe's role as a Hollywood fundraiser). For a few days there, my opinion of Schwarzenegger sank into the "unfavorable" category as well. I guess that's why they call these things "snapshots". Will Schwarzenegger's Republican vote reach Weintraub's magic 70%? I'd like to see some of the "overnights" since Schwarzenegger's ad hit the air -- and since his very forceful statements Wednesday on taxes and government reform.
Conservative elite begins to break Schwarzenegger. Notable quotable:
"He's in the John Wayne, Ronald Reagan tradition of people you can believe in." -- Newt Gingrich
Debra Saunders flips -- now says "Gov. Gray Davis deserves to be recalled."
Professional politician Cruz Bustamante -- living the American Dream -- . Quotable:
"I'm not the smartest guy," he said. "I never was the smartest guy in class. So maybe on an intellectual basis, I couldn't speak to anybody, but I figured guys like me hired guys like that."
Simon bails -- no one covers the breaking story better than California Insider. Here is CNN's coverage; and Reuters; and the AP.
As Schwarzenegger lines up Republican and conservative endorsements others balk. While the cannibals carry the day once again? Quotable:
Joel Fox, former president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which sponsored the tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978, is now advising Mr. Schwarzenegger on tax and budget issues.
The California street:
I talked to eight or ten local residents who had wandered onto the event and was struck by how little they cared about his specific policies. And it wasn�t just that they were star-struck. They were attracted to Arnold�s passion, his optimism, his heart, his take-charge attitude. They have a sense that things are going downhill in California, and they don�t want to hear excuses. They don�t want to hear that it was the private energy generators or the economy or the Bush Administration. They want to hear someone tell them that he can make it right again. That�s what they seem to be hearing from Arnold.
Donald Lambro has this Schwarzenegger tidbit:
[Schwarzenegger's] reading includes books by Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist best know for his seminal free-market work, "The Road to Serfdom."
Davis recall -- a 2-7 sure thing in Vegas. Schwarzenegger is a 7-5 favorite to win the Governorship.
Schwarzenegger -- "The public don't want no budget figures. I don't have to show you any stinking budget figures". (transcript)
Schwarzenegger's economic team:
Michael J. Boskin -- Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of economics at Stanford University. Advisor to Gov. Pete Wilson and chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisors in the first Bush administration.
Warren Buffett -- World's second-richest man and legendary investor; chairman of Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Has homes in San Francisco and Laguna Beach.
John Campbell -- State assemblyman from Irvine. Has a bachelor's in economics from UCLA and a master's in business taxation from USC. On Tuesday called Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's economic proposals "absolutely unspeakably bad."
John F. Cogan -- Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Member of the Congressional Budget Office's Panel of Economic Advisors and an economic advisor to President George W. Bush.
Robert A. Day -- Chairman of Los Angeles investment firm TCW Group, which manages $85 billion. Raised more than $100,000 for George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Grandfather founded Superior Oil, later bought by Mobil.
James L. Doti -- President of Chapman University in Orange since 1991. Professor of economics. Schwarzenegger helped raise funds for a new film and television studio at Chapman, and Doti presented the actor with an honorary doctoral degree in 2002.
Eugene F. Fama -- Professor of finance at University of Chicago business school. Known for theories on the efficiency of free markets. Director of research at Dimensional Fund Advisors, a Santa Monica investment management company in which Schwarzenegger owns a stake.
Larry L. Flores -- President of El Tapatio Markets Inc. in Los Angeles, a supermarket chain.
Paul F. Folino -- Chairman and CEO, Emulex Corp., a Costa Mesa maker of computer circuit cards. Board member of New Majority, a Orange County group of more than 100 wealthy, moderate Republicans. Encouraged Schwarzenegger to run for office.
Russell D. Goldsmith -- CEO of City National Corp., Beverly Hills-based banking firm catering to small and mid-size businesses.
Bonnie Guiton Hill -- President, B. Hill Enterprises. Former senior vice president of the Los Angeles Times.
Brian L. Halla -- Chairman and CEO of Santa Clara-based National Semiconductor Corp., which this week said it cut back on grants of employee stock options, an increasingly controversial form of compensation.
F. Warren Hellman -- Chairman of San Francisco investment firm Hellman & Friedman, which owns a 10% stake in the Nasdaq Stock Market. Backs Schwarzenegger but says he still opposes the recall election.
Bill Jones -- California secretary of State, 1994 to January 2003. Third-generation rancher and farmer from Fresno.
Raymond J. Lane -- Partner at Silicon Valley's best-known venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Former president of software giant Oracle Corp.
Edward E. Leamer -- UCLA professor of economics and director of UCLA's Anderson Forecast.
David H. Murdock -- Chairman and CEO of Dole Food Co. in Westlake Village. Took the company private earlier this year. Major landowner in Hawaii.
Carlos Olamendi -- Orange County restaurateur; has championed the rights of immigrants. Appointed by George W. Bush to the President's Advisory Committee on the Arts.
A. Jerrold Perenchio -- Chairman and CEO of Spanish-language broadcasting firm Univision Communications Inc., based in Los Angeles.
Arthur Rock -- Well-known venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. Co-founder of semiconductor leader Intel Corp.
George P. Shultz -- Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Former U.S. secretary of State and Treasury secretary.
Donna F. Tuttle -- President, Korn Tuttle Capital Group of Beverly Hills; co-owner of the Utah Grizzlies minor-league hockey team and the Inland Empire 66ers, a San Bernardino minor-league baseball team.
Julie Meier Wright -- CEO of San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. Former state secretary of Trade and Commerce under Gov. Pete Wilson.
Source: LA Times
Leftie blogger CalPundit runs Schwarzenegger's numbers and reviews his press performancs -- and concludes that Arnold's campaign is likely in for big trouble. (via Calblog)
California Republic weighs in:
Large and in charge: In what can only be described as a bravura performance, Arnold Schwarzenegger breathed new life and excitement into his candidacy today. He answered questions, he joked, he was charming -- and he did the two things he needed to do: he made it abundantly clear that he is on top and in charge of his own campaign, and he reassured Republicans who were getting a little queasy about him by articulating his opposition to the burdensome taxation that afflicts California today.
Weintraub's reports on Schwarzenegger's coming out party -- and give his take. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger displayed leadership abilities Wednesday, or at least major league communications skills. He was focused, prepared and in command, quick and at times witty. It would be easy to imagine him in the governor's office, wooing Democrats and Republicans alike with his charm while threatening to go over their heads to the people if they refused to go along with his program. But for now, Californians are being asked to simply trust him, to believe that this man and the people on whom he relies will be able to pull off a fiscal miracle that so far has eluded the political insiders in Sacramento. And after five years of figures and drafts and percentages but no balanced budget, voters just might be willing to take that chance.
California Insider has a breakdown of the PPI poll numbers. Here are the ones I'm watching:
23% Arnold Schwarzenegger
18% Cruz Bustamante
5% Tom McClintock
4% Bill Simon
3% Peter Ueberroth
My guess is that Ueberroth will fall of the map with his less than inspiring appearences this week -- and with his endorsement of both the tripling of the car tax and the the move by the legislature to give drivers licence identification to folks whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law. Ueberroth comes across as an old man, slow in articulation, and only a shadow of the man who ran the 1984 Olympics. Even Lou Dobbs in his CNN interview with Ueberroth seemed to know by the end of the interview that this was a nostalgia meeting with a man whose best days were already behind him.
California Insider has prepared a transcript of Schwarzenegger's more significance statements at the press conference Wednesday. Worth quoting:
�We must have a constitutional spending cap. We must never again permit Sacramento to mortgage our children�s future by unconstitutional deficit spending. We must immediately attack the operating deficit head on. Does this mean we are going to make substantial cuts? Yes. Does this mean education is on the table? No. Does this mean I am willing to raise taxes? No. Additional taxes are the last burden we need to put on the backs of the citizens of and businesses of California.�
More from Bloomberg on Schwarzenegger's policy statements -- including more details from the goings on at the Schwarzenegger "economic summit".
Schwarzenegger leads Bustier, er, Bustamante by 5 percentage points in the latest Public Policy Institute poll. Also, the sad truth about California begins to sink in with the public at large. Oh, and Davis is a goner. Out of there.
Bill Whalen provides his analysis of Schwarzenegger's press conference.
John Fund joins the chorus calling on Schwarzenegger to take the pledge I'm with Schwarzenegger on this. Tax pledges always struck me as dumb -- the last person to sign one of these things that I can think of was George Bush I. Schwarzenegger's own pledge is much less of an empty gesture -- and much more of a weapon in the real world of California politics:
Mr. Schwarzenegger already has shown his willingness to play hardball with the legislature. Yesterday, he promised to call a special legislative session to address the state's antibusiness political environment. He has also told friends that if the legislature balked on his budget proposals--without offering anything constructive--he would visit the districts of key legislators. There, the Terminator would turn up the political heat by holding rallies in support of his budget. He could even hold fundraisers for opponents to run against offending legislators.
I have to say, I liked what I heard from Schwarzenegger today. I particularly liked his proposal for a Constitutional measure limiting spending by the legislature. Milton Friedman has been recommending the Constitutional measure now in place in Colorado -- something similar to Ronald Reagan's failed Proposition 1.
Ann Coulter defends Schwarzenegger's afterschool initiative.
Santa Monica is Schwarzenegger's campaign headquarters.
CENSORED -- Schwarzenegger cancels Howard Stern booking.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution -- could the Supreme Court's interpretation of it have anything less to do with the purposes of the folks who wrote it?
Rush Limbaugh -- "I think Schwarzenegger is a conservative."
Rush Limbaugh's Wall Street Journal Op-Ed -- "California Needs Conservatism" -- is up on the web. (warning, hard to read). And you can listen to Rush read it here. If anyone knows were I can find an HTLM text copy, send me a note.
Team Schwarzenegger finally has Schwarzenegger's official statement on Proposition 13 up on his campaign site.
I think we can put this one to bed.
Schwarzenegger press conference coverage: LA Times; The Chronicle ; New York Times; Reuters; CNN; Bloomberg; FoxNews.
Schwarzenegger faces the press -- California Insider is on the scene.
The EIB Blog:
Rush Limbaugh demands show me your core beliefs:
My friends, I am not "piling on" Arnold Schwarzenegger when I say that having to consult economic advisors at age 56 means you don't have any core beliefs settled yet. (Note that there are loads of left-wing liberal economists who win all the Noble Prizes, but precious few who actually know what they're doing.) This is not "piling on;" it's simply an observation for those of you who see Arnold as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had his core beliefs formed years before he ran for governor. He didn't need to talk to a bunch of eggheads.Schwarzenegger campaign advisor Sean Walsh said, "Arnold has spent a great deal of time talking on the phone with world-renowned economists and experts and getting perspective..."
It's never fair to fact check elrushbo, but of course Reagan did talk with a bunch of eggheads during his run for President in 1980 -- meetings set up by Hoover Institute's Martin Anderson .. and a large percentage of these folks were members of Hayek's Mont Pelerin Society. There is no incompatibility between core beliefs and conducting conversations with folks who dedicate themselves to analysing policy nuts and bolts.
Where's Arnold? Where are the buttons and signs? Local republican officials are even having trouble getting their phone calls returned. So far, the Schwarzenegger campaign has been a no-show for Republican activists across the state.
The LA Times tells the story of how the Spanish language papers are covering the recall. Noteworth -- Davis gave the Spanish press a 1-day scoop on his decision to sign the bill which will give drivers licences to aliens living in the state in violation of the law.
Schwarzenegger's Buffett blunder gives boost to McClintock, who comes out gunning at Schwarzenegger -- and fat chance he's dropping out now. Quotable:
"I think what happened last week shocked a lot of people into realizing that a familiar name is not enough," McClintock said Tuesday. "With Warren Buffett pining for the days people lost their homes because of spiraling property taxes, it's becoming very clear that Schwarzenegger campaign is one of the most liberal that we've seen in the past 20 years."McClintock said contributions to his campaign have surged since Buffett's remark. The events of last week have only strengthened his decision to remain a candidate.
"If anyone wants to call to tell me to drop out, they can save their time because it's not going to happen," he said.
David Dreier gives a preview of Schwarzenegger's Wednesday press conference. Quotable:
Mr. Schwarzenegger will repudiated Mr. Buffett's tax comments at today's press conference, Mr. Dreier said late yesterday. The candidate will say Mr. Buffett's sole role in Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign will be helping put together state bond issues � an important consideration, given the looming budget deficit."He is going to be strongly conservative, clearly demonstrate that he is his own man and stand up to Warren Buffett."
The rest of the article examines conservative worries about Schwarzenegger.
A modest Buffett prepares for Schwarzenegger's "economic summit". Quotable:
[Buffett] said he is analyzing financial information about California and already has discussed economic issues with Schwarzenegger.Buffett said he has no "magic" ideas that would solve that state's crisis. In fact, he isn't even sure his ideas will be the best ones to follow.
"They don't need my ideas. They need good ideas, and if the two happen to coincide, that's fine."
Laguna Beach neighbors blast Buffett. Here's the story in the LA Times.
Here come the Schwarzenegger television spot.
View the ad here Windows Media Player.
Or here Quicktime.
It's a strong ad, kind of tugs at the heart. And it ends well, with a "Yes on Recall" poster board that gives the viewer an action to carry out. The work of real pros who know what their doing -- and I'm guessing one of those involved is Schwarzenegger himself.
Schwarzenegger's tax problem -- John Fund reports. Fund is doing some great reporting -- you'll find lots of newsie tidbits in the article. This article is must reading. Quotable:
With three other credible GOP candidates dividing up the Republican vote and only a single major Democrat on the ballot, Mr. Schwarzenegger has to consolidate the conservative base or watch his chance to be governor slip away.
The editor of the Washington Times reads the recall blogs. Quotable:
Arnold Schwarzenegger may never be the governor of California, but he will be remembered as the man who first demonstrated the peril of running for office in the age of Google ..Recruiting celebrities to endorse the celebrity candidate is so far the only visible strategy of the Schwarzenegger campaign. You might think the Terminator, who is big enough to do it, would stuff a sock in those celebrity mouths.
He could begin with Warren Buffett, who is so big he lives in two places. He gets by with a $4 million bungalow in Laguna Beach and a love nest in Omaha, and he can't understand why a supermarket clerk at Ralph's in Pasadena, a Toyota mechanic in Bakersfield or a grape picker in Sonoma County isn't just as eager as he is to pay more taxes on his houses. (On the other hand, Arianna, reeling under the burden of a $772 annual federal income tax, does understand.) Mr. Buffett is offended by Proposition 13, which limits tax increases on houses to no more than 2 percent a year. Prop 13 saved thousands of Californians from losing their homes, but Mr. Buffett can't figure out why Californians are so devoted to it. How could a two-bedroom tract house in Petaluma be that important to anyone?
Gray Davis, the man at the end of the rope in this gallows tale, can't believe his good fortune. "Lord knows we have some things in California that cost a lot," he says, "but property taxes are not one of them, and nobody is going to change this."
In his first week as a candidate, the Terminator has neatly reversed partisan roles. He has assumed the role of defender of the rich, leaving Gray Davis the honor of defending Prop 13 and the humble hearths of "the people" the Terminator was only yesterday proclaiming himself the champion of. A nice week's work.
So far, the great white hope of California Republicans has identified himself as the champion of abortion, gay rights and gun control. Now the tax man cometh. He's well on his way to a mere supporting role in his next movie: "My big fat Mexican governor."
California's failed "workman's comp" law -- it's all about hundreds of millions for California's snakeoil medicine industry. Call it the revenge of Upton Sinclair.
California Insider will be blogging Schwarzenegger's "economic summit" from Los Angeles Wednesday.
Schwarzenegger will take Q & A from reporters after his private "economic summit" with George Shultz, Warren Buffett and others at UCLA Wednesday. Advice for team Schwarzenegger -- get Shultz to stand next to Schwarzenegger in the photo ops, and keep Buffett in the background.
Dan Walters reports that these "economic summits" will be part of a two-pronged "Oprah & Eggheads" strategy.
Reporting as good as anything in those East coast papers -- the LA Times takes you inside Schwarzenegger's After-School All-Stars. The Democrat-leaning Times manages to wrest a mix-review spin on Schwarzenegger's executive performance out of what looks to me to be a talent for entrepreneurial alertness and adjustment which makes use of both decentralized knowledge and adaptive organizational planning.
Anyway, here's something that caught my attention:
According to associates, Schwarzenegger is frustrated that new funding for after-school programs hasn't become available despite last year's passage of Proposition 49, which he championed, as a weak economy kept state revenue from expanding by $1.5.
And so did this:
[Schwarzenegger] said he continued to believe in decentralized management � "we don't tell them what to do," he said of the foundation's affiliates. But he also said he expected more discipline from his group as it competed for scarce public funds."We have to now concentrate on accountability," he said. "Otherwise, we will not get the federal funding."
And one more tidbit:
By the star's account, digital education became a priority after a summer workshop co-sponsored by its New York City affiliate found, in a survey, that computers were as popular as sports with its middle-school-aged participants.By 1998, Orlando, Fla.; Miami and Houston were operating computer camps with machines from Dell Inc. and software from Cendant Corp.
The Schwarzenegger campaign re-launches Wednesday with television ads and an "economic summit" -- which will include Warren Buffett at Schwarzenegger's side.
Jack Kemp -- fire Buffett. Quotable:
As a native Californian, my instincts tell me Schwarzenegger will never see the inside of the governor's mansion in Sacramento unless he says hasta la vista to Buffett before Election Day arrives.
Schwarzenegger has his hands still clutching the "third rail" of California politics, and I think he's finding it a lot harder to break free than any of his political advisors have imagined.
An enraged George Putnam -- radio talk host and original backer of Proposition 13 -- also called for the firing of Buffett. An enraged George Putnam -- imagine it. You've really screwed up when you've enraged a man as sweet natured as Putnam. Putnam beat the drums on what a threat a Schwarzenegger governorhship would be to the senior citizens of California.
So far Schwarzenegger's response to the Buffett fiasco has been too little, too late -- his press release of the other day simply isn't registering over the outrage over Buffett and the suggestion that Proposition 13 should be trashed.
And now Bill Simon is running radio spots saying this:
"I'm Bill Simon. Gray Davis tripled our car taxes and now Arnold Schwarzenegger's team wants to triple our property taxes, which just goes to show you, don't send a liberal to do a tax-fighter's job."
Schwarzenegger's latest written press statement reads as follows:
"I expect many dynamic ideas and policy recommendations from my team. But with regards to my position on Proposition 13, my position is rock solid in support of that initiative."
Schwarzenegger's loudest statement -- Buffett still sitting at the top of his economic policy team. I doubt many have read Schwarzenegger's press release. If you've turned on the radio or watched a news show, it's hard to have missed the fact that Schwarzenegger's top economic advisor opposes Proposition 13 -- but doesn't oppose tax increases. That's still the #1 message coming out of the Schwarzenegger campaign, and it's a message that can only mean disaster for Schwarzenegger's effort to expand support among Republican voters. Schwarzenegger has almost guaranteed that the base of support for McClintock and Simon will hold -- and in the short term will almost certainly expand.
And the thing I can't get over is that none of this should ever have happened.
WeLoveArnold.com -- Schwarzenegger quotes and more.
What will a winning coalition look like in the race for Govern of California? -- California Insider provides an analysis.
Weintraub figures that a winning Schwarzenegger coalition would include 70% of the Republican vote. If that's on target, it looks to me at this point like Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be the next Governor of California. Schwarzenegger has bizarrely chosen a path which is alienating to the great middle class majority of Republican and independent voters. He begins his unannounced campaign for Governor with a speech celebrating the 25 year anniversary of Proposition 13 before the anti-tax Club of Growth. He then announces his candidacy as a movement to bring "the people" back to Sacramento. But what is is first formal move as a candidate? Well, his first move is to put a man as far removed from the people as one can imagine -- and a complete amateur at that -- in charge of tax and budget policy. Warren Buffett -- a man for whom paying taxes is like tipping the waitress at Dairy Queen. Oh, and this is also a man rather famously in favor of both increased tax rates and increased government spending. Middle class voters could only ask, "What's the message Arnold?" It was all a train wreck waiting to happen.
George Shultz is on record opposing any tax increase for California.
If this were any other election featuring any other candidate, the first official week of the California recall campaign would be considered a bust for actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.The self-described fiscal conservative signed on a billionaire who thinks California's property taxes are too low. He couldn't remember a meeting with disgraced Enron executive Ken Lay. He hired campaign consultants with questionable pasts. Actor Rob Lowe joined as a volunteer campaign adviser.
All of this gave the political and media establishment exactly what they were looking for: An opening to question Schwarzenegger's abilities as a candidate. The establishment likes to think the world of politics is the most brutal of all, where even Mr. Olympia can be reduced to a crying wimp when he doesn't play by the regular rules ..
Rob Lowe endorsed Schwarzenegger on the entertainment news show "Extra". Quotable:
"I know that when I'm on a set, I want to know who the director is. I don't want to have to guess," Lowe said. "That's what Arnold will bring to this state."
A Field poll nugget -- candidates in the recall election can count on only paper thin support from a large percentage of registered voters. Quotable:
44% of those backing a candidate said they might change their minds.
Oprah to endorse Schwarzenegger?
Schwarzenegger is considering an appearance on �Oprah.� An endorsement from Oprah Winfrey, a close friend of his wife, Maria Shriver, could boost his appeal tremendously among women.
And this:
This week Schwarzenegger will try to deflect criticism that his flashy campaign lacks substance by appearing at UCLA with members of his newly formed Economic Recovery Council.
-- Newsweek
Schwarzenegger issues a formal statement on the Buffett blowup -- California Insider has it.
Sunday night's Drudge Report lead: GOVERNOR TAX: ARNOLD TELLS ADVISERS HE WILL NOT RULE OUT HIGHER RATES -- teasing his late-night, heard only in California, KFI Los Angeles radio program.
UPDATE: It's now titled "ARNOLD TELLS ADVISERS HE WILL NOT RULE OUT HIGHER TAXES; BUFFETT BLOWUP OVER PROP 13".
Justene is back from Alaska and returned to her usual post at Calblog.
Ronald Reagan historian Steve Hayward has this perceptive thought posted at No Left Turns:
One of the interesting things Reagan did, though, was to realize that people would think he was just an actor repeating memorized lines. So in his campaign travels around the state he gave short speeches, and then took questions from the audience for as long as an hour. He demonstrated a real ability to think and talk on his feet, as well as a decent familiarity with state issues. It was this that impressed reporters, and made the media take him seriously. Arnold needs to do something like this to prove he is for real.
Gun control advocacy -- making the world safe for actor politicians who make movies like this. Any chance an actor would re-think exactly what sort of regulations are advised to make us safe in a world were such movies shape the minds of children? Nope.
Schwarzenegger -- what's the appeal? And here is California Insiders take on the latest all-Arnold Field Poll.
A must read from historian Ken Star. Worth quoting:
Something powerfully transformative is underway in state politics, and it is nothing less than voters' self-liberation from a claustrophobic and demeaning political culture out of sync with today's 24/7 information society and unworthy of the larger creativity of the Golden State.
And this:
The high-speed Internet- connected multimedia culture, thirdly, cannot be controlled at any one point. It is open, unfiltered and rabidly democratic. Now it helps spawn political candidacies .. Candidates open Web sites, not headquarters. The political debate is conducted in cyberspace, with blogs of virtually all political stripes and voters providing the dialogue � and it's instantly accessible. State politics, by contrast, is a largely closed system of noncompetitive seats, limited budgetary options and rules designed to impede action, with the development of leadership on a voter-imposed time clock. In short, politicians are playing on an increasingly smaller court at a pace that seems frozen by Internet standards.
Schwarzenegger -- lone candidate no-show in LA Times budget questionaire. Worth noting -- Bustamante proposes a huge new tax burden on Californians in order to close massive state spending overruns.
McClintock brings Californians to their feet in head-to-head face-off with Bill Simon.
georgewill@washpost.com
Who would have thunk the world would come to this. (via Priorities & Frivolities.)
Mark Steyn mistakes Arianna Huffington for a sexpot.
Reason Institute has an electricity blackout policy resource center up and running. The Knowledge Problem is providing superior blog coverage of the blackout and electric energy policy generally, as you might expect.
Brad DeLong takes a "cut to the chase" look at Irving Kristol and the neoconservatives.
Hoover's Bill Whalen on Schwarzenegger's run for governor.
BLOG THE RECALL is a fairly solid left-of-center anti-recall cite. Worth a look.
Upclose and personal with Daniel Weintraub.
I found this particularly interesting:
My weblog, which I started in April, is generating more than 20,000 hits a day, which I think puts it among the top 10 or 20 blogs in the country.
Daily Pundit on the Buffett Proposition 13 trainwreck, "It didn't take a genius to see this one coming." You don't say. And a Daily Pundit prediction -- it's lights out for Buffett.
Does Schwarzenegger need to go all the way to Nebraska to get advice like this?:
Buffett said the state clearly had to close the gap between its spending and revenue, whether through spending cuts or taxes."That has to happen someday," Buffett said. "The earlier you get there the better."
Buffett said allowing deficits to accumulate would leave the state overburdened by its interest costs.
"You close it up one way or another. It's up to Arnold to decide which things to cut and where to make changes in revenues," he said.
Unbelievable. And this:
Buffett's new political role left at least one Berkshire Hathaway investor cold."I'm a little disappointed," said Nancy Black, member of an investment club in St. Joseph and one of the estimated 1,300 people who attended Friday's furniture store opening. "I think it's such a circus out there. I'm surprised he became involved in it."
Asked about Black's concern, Buffett said his attention remained steadfast on Berkshire and its businesses.
I'm concerned that Schwarzenegger's advisors are empty vessels (see below).
A series of questionable campaign appointments will quickly give California voters the first impression that Schwarzenegger is a dumb actor, out of his element and in over his head.
Club of Growth's Stephen Moore on Buffett's blunder:
"It was kind of our worst nightmare coming true."
From LA Times coverage of the blowup over Billionaire Buffett's implied suggestion that Prop 13 should be eliminated and property taxes in California should be steeply raised. Some reaction from California voters:
"I don't know why this would be an issue in the governor's race," said Chuck Scheid, 76, a Huntington Beach homeowner for 40 years. "Anyone that talks about eliminating Prop. 13 is pretty much dead on arrival."Sharon Ashford, a writing instructor and Granada Hills mother of three, said much the same thing.
"The fact of the matter is that 99% of Californians are regular working-class people who struggle to buy their first home and struggle during the first years to keep up with the mortgage and taxes," she said. "Raising property taxes is not the answer because it puts too much pressure on families."
And here is the SacBee story on the Buffett blowup.
And from the AP, including this:
"He takes the risk of being perceived as an empty vessel, a smart but empty vessel, into which Warren Buffett, George Shultz and Pete Wilson can pour their ideas."
From the Chronicle:
The flap over Buffett's comments only enhance the suspicions among conservative Republicans that Schwarzenegger is not a true California-style Republican committed to the no-tax, cut-spending philosophy that has been the mainstay of the state's GOP.
And the Mercury News.
[Kris] Vosburgh [executive director of the Jarvis taxpayer group] called Buffett's comments a ``slap at Proposition 13 and the two-thirds of voters who voted to pass it. What we're talking about is one of the world's richest men, and it's clear he's out of touch with the average working Californian.''
And Mark Martin in the Chronicle:
Buffett, the billionaire investor, hit one of the deepest political nerves there is in California. "Those are fighting words," proclaimed Ted Costa, an anti-tax advocate who helped implement Prop. 13 and also kick-started the recall effort this year. "That doesn't play well in California. He [Schwarzenegger] needs a new script."
Steve Hayward on Warren Buffett and Proposition 13 -- includes an interesting little tidbit on McClintock.
What exactly is Schwarzenegger's position on gun control? Xrlq wants to know. In the mean times, he's tentatively backing McClintock.
The latest Field poll numbers, brought to you by California Insider. Worth noting -- Republicans are splitting 36% Schwarzenegger, 19% McClintock, 17% Simon. Watch these numbers tighten as the negative reaction to Schwarzenegger's campaign blunders begin to register, and as the Simon and McClintock campaigns begin to gain traction, with Simon already on air with radio ads. Also, Schwarzenegger is getting only 9% of the Democratic vote, which has to be a disappointment for the Schwarzenneger campaign. Oh, and people hate Arianna Huffington. Her negatives are over 50%, which can't be too far behind her name recognition numbers.
First impressions are important in politics, and the impression the Schwarzenegger for Governor campaign is making is the impression of the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Today on afternoon drive in Southern California, Schwarzenegger's campaign was hammered for two solid hours by KFI's John and Ken and their listeners on the topic of Warren Buffett and taxes. This is California's most listened to talk radio program, which has been a driving force behind the California recall. The Schwarzenegger campaign was put in the position of doing damage control once again -- and doing it rather poorly. Instead of going on air to help ease the furor caused by Warren Buffett's statement that Californians are not taxed enough, the Schwarzenegger campaign directed hosts John and Ken to this AP story. Had the Schwarzenegger folks read the thing? Contained within the story was this choice bit:
University of California, Riverside political science professor Shaun Bowler suggested Buffett's remarks may be a campaign "trial balloon" to gauge public response. "If it ends up just attracting venom on (Los Angeles radio station) KFI, then he'll say, 'This is just Warren Buffett speaking,"' Bowler said.
Unbelievably, the Schwarzenegger's appointment of Buffett has given Gray Davis the unlikely opportunity to take a stand as a tax increase fighter and better friend of the taxpayer than "Republican" Arnold Schwarzenegger:
"Lord knows we have some things in California that cost a lot, but property taxes are not one of them and nobody is going to change this," the governor said at a Los Angeles elementary school.
And it gave Schwarzenegger's Republican rivals the opportunity to signal to voters that they are reliable on the tax issue, while Schwarzenegger -- whose views are essentially unknown -- is not reliable on taxes. In a tax revolt year in a tax revolt election, this is not a good place to be, to say the least. Quotable:
Another Republican candidate, state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, said Buffett's comments were shocking in the heavily taxed state."My message to Mr. Buffett and Mr. Schwarzenegger is this: That property tax bill is a suggested minimum. They are more than welcome to send in as much more as makes them happy. I only ask that they leave the rest of us alone."
And this:
"He needs to let the people of California know today and just as loudly whether he supports his adviser's scheme for massive property tax increases," Simon said in a statement.
And now the appointment of Rob Lowe, the poster child of both Hollywood sex scandal and the stereotypical air-head Hollywood Democrat, as a "senior advisor" to Schwarzenegger. It's as if the Schwarzenegger campaign is intentionally hightening every worry and concern voters might have about Arnold Schwarzenegger -- that he might not be a reliable Republican, that he'll governor from the left, that he has no moral values, that he's an air-head celebrity actor, etc., etc.
UPDATE: Foxnews has good copy on the Buffett blowup. (via Calblog).
George Bush's Bigger, Fatter Welfare State. The President is a liar -- but the thing he's lying about is the near half trillion dollar federal spending overrun. The Federal government is on a much bigger new spending binge than Gray Davis and the California legislature ever imagined in their wettest of wet dreams. He's what the President said the other day:
Q: With that in mind, if a Democrat were President .. and were running a $455 billion deficit, as are you, all other things being equal, wouldn't you be upset about it?THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you something, the deficit was caused by a recession which we inherited and did something about. The deficit was caused because we spent more money on fighting a war, and the American people expect a President to do what is necessary to win a war. So I look forward to taking this debate on. I really do. We did the right thing when it came to tax relief. We inherited a tough situation.
But most importantly, the American know that I'm not afraid to lead and to make a tough decision. And I made a tough decision, a series of tough decisions. One, to make America more secure, a tough decision to make the world more peaceful, and I made tough decisions when it comes to making sure our economy grows.
So far, the President's only "tough" decision has been to shower the American people with money he's borrowed from overseas investors. This, to say the least, is not in the long-term interest of the American people -- especially of those in the next generation who will be paying off all this new debt -- with interest.
Hugh Hewitt handicaps the race to replace:
truth be told, unless AS is felled by some meta-scandal, the race is over, and most California political reporters know this and acknowledge it to each other. The contest will still be fun, especially the collapse of Gray as the starch goes out of the empty suit, but all the GOP candidates other than AS have as their grand strategy hoping that AS --one of the most disciplined individuals in California-- will make a giant misstep. At least they have a strategy, though, as the Dems do not. AS v. Cruz --yeah, that will be close.
"Why do they hate me?" -- California Insider has a breakdown of the new Davis recall numbers just out from the Field Poll. George Will insists that all "true" conservatives will vote against the recall -- if so, all the "true" conservatives in California will barely fill the seats in a Mini. Either that or all the "true" conservatives in California are actually Leftists: Here are the numbers -- "The recall wins big among conservatives (87-7) and moderates (58-36) while losing among liberals (18-78)."
Did Schwarzenegger meet with Enron's Ken Lay in 2001 to discuss electric power deregulation? Some folks at Consumer Watchdog claim that he did.
Rough & Tumble cites a Wall Street Journal story in today's paper which has it that Warren Buffett attacks Proposition 13 and suggests that California property taxes need to be raised. If Buffett isn't given the boot, it will be interesting to see how Schwarzenegger finesses this one. If Schwarzenegger can't be trusted on taxes, he won't be governor of California. It's that simple.
I know what Ronald Reagan would do. He'd fire Buffett.
UPDATE: Reuters has the story.
UPDATE II: And here is California Insiders take on the story.
Now this is more realistic. George Shultz will head Schwarzenegger's economic recovery team. This is the A team follks. But a simple question for the Schwarzenegger folks -- can't we find at least one person under the age of 70 to be put in charge of something?
Fred Barnes on Bush, the big government "conservative". And note well, the first thing Barnes lists which makes this big government President a "conservative" is .. abortion. Presumably, Fred Barnes would consider FDR a "conservative" because there is no record of Roosevelt acting to legalize abortion, working to control guns, or pushing for gay marriage. That's right, in Fred Barnes' world, Franklin Roosevelt is a conservative, and it looks like Barry Goldwater is not. Something is very rotten in Denmark.
Tom McClintock has been endorsed by the California Republican Assembly.
Ed Feulner -- what we're doing to my new children -- and Ed's new grandchild.
National "conservatives" face a dilema -- as many choose a social issue litmus test, others struggle to live in the real world. Worth quoting:
"We're talking about who can win in California, not who can win in South Carolina." -- Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition.
National Review -- Thumbs down on Schwarzenegger. Quotable:
Arnold Schwarzenegger's Tonight Show campaign announcement brought the recall to a boil, but Schwarzenegger, it seems clear, does not merit conservative support. In his multiple careers he has shown himself to be persistent and cunning. He surely believes in his Austrian-immigrant rags-to-riches story, and this seems to have prompted in him at least a curiosity about libertarian economics (he has attended functions sponsored by Reason magazine, and hobnobbed with Milton Friedman). But Schwarzenegger is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. If he has any thoughts on illegal immigration, or the crushing rates of legal immigration from Mexico and points south, he has not revealed them. His campaign utterances so far have been bromides about California's children. (When politicians speak of children, count the spoons.) Rudy Giuliani was a liberal Republican who was a hard-core conservative on one salient issue — crime. Schwarzenegger appears to be simply a liberal Republican. If he is to win a measure of conservative sympathy, he must endorse a firm no-tax pledge and a serious plan to retrench the Sacramento spending and regulatory regime.
California recalls's vast right-wing conspiracy. Worth quoting:
Gerald Parsky, George W. Bush's chief California fund-raiser .. initially distanced himself from the recall out of concern that it might .. divert funds away from Bush's 2004 re-election drive.
The Left crosses its finger and hope the race card will bring Schwarzenegger down.
"In .. two weeks, I've done more political stories than I did in the five years before." --
Local LA television "newsman".
SacBee -- who will get the "conservative" vote. Tidbit -- McClintock is raising $100,000 a week -- raised $27,000 in one day. Contribute here.
"WATCHING THE EAST COAST MEDIA attempt to cover the California recall is like watching Tim McCarver call a Dodgers game while Vin Scully looks on without a mike .. " -- Hugh Hewitt.
Is Schwarzenegger a conservative? Newt Gingrich weighs in.
"In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine was hailing California as a "laboratory" for Democratic policies. With "its Democratic governor, U.S. senators, state legislature and congressional delegation," author Harold Meyerson gushed, "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." In the Golden State, Meyerson said, "the next New Deal is in tryouts." .. " Ann Coulter.
Larry Elder has the beef -- and the numbers -- on what has gone wrong in California.
Robert Novak -- Schwarzenegger is only nominally a Republican.
Nebraska Democrat and pro-tax advocate Warren Buffett has been hired (yes, many news outlets hae it that the multi-billionaire has been hired) by Schwarzenegger as some sort of financial "advisor" and economic policy team leader. Quotable:
"It is critical to the rest of the nation that California's economic crisis be solved, and I think Arnold will get that job done."
What this means I have no idea. I'm not aware that Buffett has any experience in the public sector. USA Today seems to think this is good politics for Schwarzenegger. We'll see.
Here they are -- all 135 contestants in the Miss California beauty contest.
Tired of trying to keep up with the glut of recall news articles? Then clip our handy News-o-matic story guide and read it daily until further notice. You won't miss a thing:Schwarzenegger under fire from rival candidates for his (choose one) accent, acting ability, stance on Prop. 187, ownership of a Hummer, eerily white teeth, all of the above.
Wacky unknown candidate says or does something wacky.
Schwarzenegger makes public appearance, ducks questions from media.
Teflon Terminator's poll numbers continue to climb.
Gray Davis, in futile bid to save job, switches from "fighting like a Bengal tiger" to fighting like a giant woodchuck, a fierce poodle, an amphetamine-crazed ferret, a Navy dolphin wired with explosives.
Roy Rivenburg in the LA Times.
Wait till the French and the Lefties hear about this:
The Austrian school of thought that packs a massive political punchIf there was a global godfather of this neo-conservative movement, it would be Friedrich von Hayek .. in 1947, he set up the Mont Pelerin Society, a secretive group that met annually to map out a neo-conservative counterattack against the growing socialist character of postwar economies. It played midwife to scores of neo-conservative think tanks, among them the Heritage Foundation (1973) and the Cato Institute (1977) in the US and Australia's CIS (1975).
The society and its progeny have been enormously influential: of the 76 advisers in Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, 22 were members. And its members include Nobel laureate Milton Friedman (a former president), Czech Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus and former New Zealand finance minister Ruth Richardson. Greg Lindsay, the executive director of the CIS in Sydney, is a former vice-president. Neo-conservative think tanks now dominate the political debate in much of the West.
In Australia, as elsewhere, they ply their trade by publishing "independent research" from a network of like-minded scholars whose reports invariably end up backing the neo-conservative world view. Staff and friendly scholars are paid to write newspaper articles which are submitted - usually free - to opinion pages.
By publishing reports that confirm their arguments, neo-conservative think tanks seek to mould public debate. But they also peddle influence, holding closed seminars and lectures where visiting international conservative luminaries address selected rising members of the political elite - such as last week's CIS gathering on the Sunshine Coast. Von Hayek would have been pleased. He died in 1992, but not before Thatcher rewarded him with a visit to Buckingham Palace, where he was bestowed with a Companion of Honour - a tribute to the most successful, if unheralded, political puppet-master of the past century.
Michael Lind, call your agent.
Gray Davis continues his "8 million voters asked me to take on the job of Governor" deception.
"I have an obligation to the eight million who went to the polls last November: They asked me to do a job in California"
In fact, far less than half that number "asked" Davis to do the job of Governor. This must be poll tested stuff scripted by the handlers.
Media critic Neal Gabler gets everything exactly backwards:
�What California voters are doing is to consciously convert the political process into a movie,� Gabler says. �Arnold understands that the election has nothing to do with politics and everything with entertainment values.�The outcome of the election, the New York-based writer believes, hinges on what approach the media decides to take.
�If the media reports this as a serious political issue, I don�t think Arnold will win,� Gabler says. �But if they treat this as just fun and games, then he�s in.�
Pete Wilson, backing Schwarzenegger and the recall -- this is personal.
Schwarzenegger features wife Maria on his web site. These team Schwarzenegger folks are not dumb.
Be an Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor volunteer.
The national Republican party should turn its back on mainstream California Republicans -- Terence Jeffrey
Debra Saunders weighs in on Schwarzenegger and the recall. Quotable:
Some have suggested that Schwarzenegger should pledge to not raise taxes in order to cinch the GOP vote. That is, he should act like other "experienced" politicians by promising more something for more nothing. He should parrot "experienced" pols who promise to cut a deal with left-leaning legislators -- which can only happen by papering over costly debt.If Schwarzenegger wants to show that he can be a leader, however, he won't take such a pledge. Instead, he'll explain how he wants to reform the workers' comp system, eliminate business-hostile regulations and cut the best deal he can cut on the budget, given the fact that the Legislature, alas, is packed with liberal Democrats.
If Schwarzenegger wants to lead, he should start by treating voters like adults. In so doing, Ah-nold could demonstrate the clear advantage of electing a governor who is not "experienced."
Ben Shapiro -- Why I'm voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Can there be any Californians left who don't know at least someone who has fled the state for Idaho, Nevada, Washington or Arizona? In many ways, all of these states are better places to live, work or build a business. I can easily name a half-dozen people who have left in the last 2 or three years, some of them taking their businesses with them. Thomas Sowell has a nice piece examining new Census data which shows that Californians are voting with their feet.
The BlogFather on Schwarzenegger, voting and sex:
I WAS ON THE HUGH HEWITT SHOW a little while ago, but he didn't ask the questions I most feared: "Is the recall good? Is it good that Arnold Schwarzenegger is running?"As to the first, well, I have to disagree with George Will, who disapproves of the recall's "plebiscitary cynicism," and says that real conservatives will vote against recalling Davis. That seems wrong to me. California's voters put the recall into the state constitution and kept it there. Presumably, they like it. It may or may not be a good idea, but it seems a bit odd to say that the time for the voters to act against the recall petition is once it's triggered ..
At any rate, as I wrote in a law review article called Is Democracy Like Sex? (which inspired a column by Will back in 1995 when it came out), voting doesn't have to make sense to benefit the body politic. In the article, I used a biological metaphor: Many evolutionary biologists believe that sex evolved, despite its cumbersome and expensive characteristics, because it jumbled up genes in a way that made their holders more resistant to parasites over time ..
If one looks at special interest groups as parasites on the body politic -- as, I think, we probably should -- then electoral politics has the effect of shaking up the cozy relationships between politicians and clients, and keeping society more open. (And under Davis, those relationships have been extra-cozy). This disruption of what economist Mancur Olson called the "web of special interests" may be very important way of keeping societies from ossifying. What's more, it works even if (perhaps especially if) the voters occasionally act irrationally or unpredictably ..
In his column about my article, George Will wrote: "Is democracy like sex? Surely not. If it were, more people would vote." Democracy may not be like sex. But Schwarzenegger's candidacy is making it sexy. And perhaps that's close enough.
Read the whole thing for more on Schwarzenegger.
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
Is it possible that George Will knows what a fisking is?
Still, no matter how unlikely [John Fund's] concerns are, at least he didn't fall into harumpphhery like George Will. Will seems to think that the AS candidacy is a threat to Reagan's legacy, and obviously upset at the prospect, unleashes this one: "Truly conservative Californians --you few know who you are-- will vote against the recall to protest its plebiscitary cynicism." Oh yeah, that's right. Forget the illegally tripled car tax, the hot-check written to paper over the deficit, the crumbling schools, the clogged highways and of course, the transgenedered-at-work protection act and the inane family leave for sick puppies act. Written like a man with a nice bank account and secure work, living in an earthquake free zone where fires never break out and spread uncontrollably, who can afford an extra $600 per car and doesn't mind that the local high school is turning out graduates who need to be retrained before they are employable. True conservatives, in other words, sit on their butts and watch institutions and economies collapse so they can feel good about themselves until it is time to relocate to Florida like Tiger Woods.Sometimes you should just take a pass, George, if you haven't been living there.
George Will, you've just been fisked curtesy of Hugh Hewitt
As L.A. Observed notes, there are already some recall winners ... .
More on Friedman, Hayek and Arnold Schwarzenegger from Infinite Monkeys:
Arnold is an Economics NerdWhen I was in college, I was a bit of a library nerd. I used to go to UCSD�s Central Library and browse the stacks, especially the economics section. I remember picking up a small, poorly bound book that was a collection of papers presented at a very academic, very technical symposium held in the early 1980's on the Austrian school of economics. That's not actually a school, but a group of thinkers who ushered in a new free market view of economics. On the first page was a small list of attendees at the conference, and there was Arnold Schwarzenegger's name.
This actually wasn't that surprising, and not just because Arnold's Austrian. He has an undergraduate degree in business and international economics, and was very rich before he ever became an actor (he invested the money he made in body building very shrewdly).
I may still have a lot of questions about Arnold, and I'm not sure if I'll vote for him. But I strongly disagree with those (such as Charles at Little Green Footballs) who claim that no one knows what he stands for.
In fact, I'll let Arnold respond to that, in a way, with this quote from Laissez Faire Book's web page selling Milton and Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose" videos:
Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose TV series has changed my life.
I came from Austria, a socialistic country where government controlled the economy. A place where you can hear 18-year-old kids talking about their pensions. I wanted more. I wanted to be the best. I had to come to America. I had no money in my pocket, but here I had the freedom to get it. I have been able to parlay my muscles into a big movie career.
Okay, so there I was, waiting for Maria to get ready for a game of mixed doubles tennis. I started flipping the television dial. I caught a glimpse of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman whom I recognized from my studies in economics. I didn't know I was watching Free to Choose. It knocked me out. Dr. Friedman validated everything I ever thought about the way the economy works.
I became a big pain in the neck about Free to Choose. All my friends and acquaintances got tapes as well as books for Christmas after Christmas. If I had come up with Free to Choose, maybe I wouldn't have got into body building. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Some notes. Friedrich Hayek is the best well known member of the Austrian School of Economics. The first few pages of Friedman's Free to Choose is classic exposition of Hayek's account of the price system as knowledge communication system. Hayek's classic paper "The Use of Knowledge is Society" was a fixture in Friedman's economic classes at the U. of Chicago. Friedman was among those turned toward a free market liberal perspective after reading Hayek's The Road to Serfdom -- and Friedman was an original member of Hayek's influential Mont Pelerin Society.
When he was taking some heat from journalists and opponents for not taking specific positions on issues, such as the state budget deficit, Schwarzenegger's chief adviser, George Gorton, responded: "This is not a position election. This is a character election. People are looking at character here, they're looking for somebody who will go in and clean house."Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Sean Walsh, echoed those words when he said, "Our strategy is to make it clear that Gray Davis is the problem in California. California wants a vital leader, someone who is tough enough to get the job done."
At some point, the actor's campaign will produce a quota of position papers on the budget and other issues to quiet demands of political journalists, but they will have little or nothing to do with the high-concept strategy of going over journalists' heads to directly sell Schwarzenegger as the cure for the state's ills. And given the dynamics of the situation -- a brief campaign period and the demand on voters to decide Davis' fate -- it may be a winner ...
And Daniel Weintraub:
As much as anyone, I want to hear specifics from Schwarzenegger about his views on state issues and his plans to solve California's problems. But on family leave, Arnold might have been wise to defer. Because while giving employees paid time off to bond with a newborn or adopted child or to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, domestic partner or parent sounds great, the program has serious problems. If not corrected, the new law will probably cost far more than projected and could undermine the solvency of the state's disability fund ...
Do you find better political analysists in New York State or Washington, D.C? No, you don't.
Blogging the California recall from a sailboat off the coast of Mexico. Hmmm. Would PrestPundit trade blogging the recall one handed with an urpy baby in tow for that? Naah.
Schwarzenegger on the record on the litmus test ideological issues.
National Review's Rich Lowry fisks the anti-recall arguments of George Will and Mona Charen -- and comes out strongly in favor of Terminating Gray Davis. Money quote:
if successful [the California recall] will be the most bracing act of political hygiene since Theodore Roosevelt took on the meatpackers. If you were to distill all that is worst about American politics into one man, he would have perfectly combed hair and he would answer to "Gray." A cautious political hack whose only strength is selling out to unions and trial lawyers, Gov. Gray Davis is Bill Clinton without the conscience, Al Gore without the charm. It would be a mistake, however, to overpersonalize his failings. The populist upheaval in California is the result of a chapter in state government that will be compared to the robber baron era. It is a tale of how unions and trial lawyers can ruin a state's economy with assistance from a very willing governor.
The clever imagination of Kausfiles -- one step behind reality.
The Game Show Network will host the first debate in the race for California Governor. At stake -- $21,200 in campaign funds.
Robert Salladay of the Chronical has a piece on Schwarzenegger's "outside the box" political ideology. He's a suggestion folks, just call it "liberal" -- (classic) liberal, the way Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are limited government, pro-market liberals, who make an important place for the role for governerment. (If you thought otherwise, you don't know your Hayek, Smith, or Friedman). Tidbit -- Bill Whalen of the Hoover Institute has worked as an analyst for Schwarzenegger.
(Footnote -- reading the article I'd say it's a sure bet that Salladay is a big-time reader of the blogs -- including this one).
Milton Friedman set to star in Schwarzenegger for Governor commercials? Stay tuned.
And this -- Arnold will ramp up the content side of his campaign with an all-star team of free-market liberals -- a team which may include Stephen Moore, Larry Kudlow, Steve Forbes and Art Laffer.
John Fund has the scoop. Quotable:
for years [Schwarzenegger's] favorite Christmas present for friends was Mr. Friedman's book "Free to Choose."
Right-coaster Frum seems unaware of Schwarzenegger's close ties to such heavy-hitting research centers as the Reason Institute, a free-market liberal think tank; or the better known Hoover Institute. California is loaded with talented pro-market liberal thinkers and it's a sure bet that Schwarzenegger will pull many of these folk into the Arnold fold.
Schwarzenegger positions himself to re-enter Forbes 100 top celebrities.
George Will tells California conservatives what they should think about Arnold Schwarzenegger -- and how they should vote on the recall.
Workers of the World California unite behind John Christopher Burton.
Mona Charen -- another right-coaster against the recall.
Schwarzenegger's campaign team goes Hollywood with a Showtime movie scheduled for April, 2004.
Websites of the full clown car of candidates in the race for Governor in California. And here it is, finally, the website we've anticipated most .. and reportedly, the famous actor will be fielding questions via his website soon. (hat tip to Pathetic Earthlings)
MSNBC POLL: California is heading in the wrong direction -- 72%. Schwarzenegger's nearest rival is "undecided" at 26%. McClintock barely registers at 4%. And get this -- 40% of state Democrats want Davis out.
"Schwarzenegger is my kind of Democrat"
-- Bill Press, former chairman of the California Democratic Party, on MSNBC today.
Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition identifies Arnold Schwarzenegger as a dark villain, and has set up organization to block his election as Governor.
David Horowitz flips -- now backs recall, Schwarzenegger:
Arnold's is a dream candidacy for the Republican Party, which he alone can rescue from the dead. He has already made Republicans more user friendly to the public at large. He will make it easier for media talent in the state to relate to the Republican Party, which has ramifications for campaigns beyond California. He will inspire significant numbers of independents to vote for his party. And if he is elected -- unlike the conservatives biting at his heels -- he will be a formidable counter-balance to the Democratic legislature, which means he could actually improve the financial condition of the state .. For all these reasons Republicans of all factions should rejoice at the Schwarzenegger candidacy. It offers the only possibility of a win for state Republicans or for the Bush campaign in California. It will help to revive the California Republican Party. And it could reshape the politics of the nation.
More.
The Gallup Poll is out. 68% of probable voters say they may vote Schwarzenegger. 48% of problable voters say their is a good or very good chance they'll vote for Schwarzenegger. 69% of probable voters are in favor of removal from office for Governor Gray Davis. This will shake things up.
Schwarzenegger's top three role models:
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Milton Friedman
3. Muhammad Ali
Interview on MSNBC from 1999.
Speaking of Reagan as role model, I've been dipping into Peter Robinson's How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. Whoever has it that Peggy Noonan was Reagan's best writer is off by about a 1,000 miles. Robinson brings the same ease of language to his new book that I found in his It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP, which I just plain enjoyed. Robinson's new book is a sort of a mix between a coming of age story and a "self-help" book for folks in their 20's, for those who are trying to figure out what it means actually to be an adult. Reagan, surprisingly, proved an important role model for the young speech writer. Is Robinson a better writer than, say, Lileks? Well, he's no doubt a different kind of writer, but Maybe. Anyway, the guy can write -- and he has something to say. A rare combination. Hugh Hewitt has been pushing Robinson's book, but I don't think he's been very effective in explaining why. Well, this is why. It's great writing and it takes on the "how should I live" question, which interests most all of us. Well, so much for my little book report.
Colby Cosh calls Schwarzenegger a "National Greatness Conservative" who can talk like a Kennedy on domestic issues. No wonder Limbaugh is spinning in his easy chair.
Daily Pundit finds one more reason to support Schwarzenegger for Governor.
A Republican with no political experience "cleans house" in Sacramento:
Hiram Johnson was born and raised in Sacramento, and it was there that he was indoctrinated into politics. As a young man, he accompanied his father, armed with pistols, into a "den" of dishonest politicians and watched as he fearlessly denounced them for their corruption. Although the political poles of father and son were to differ in later years, the younger Johnson was never to waiver in his campaign against corruption. Johnson initially worked in law offices as a stenographer and shorthand reporter, but eventually became a lawyer himself. He attracted the attention of politicians statewide when he successfully took over as special prosecutor in a notorious graft trial when the chief prosecutor was gunned down in the courtroom. Two years later, Johnson, politically a Progressive, was elected Governor. He had never held public office before.
And this:
Johnson, Hiram Warren, 1866�1945, American political leader, U.S. Senator from California (1917�45), b. Sacramento, Calif. His role as attorney in the successful prosecution of Abe Ruef, political boss of San Francisco, led to his election (1910) as governor of California. Johnson broke the political domination of the Southern Pacific RR in California and secured the enactment of much reform legislation. A founder of the Progressive party, he was Theodore Roosevelt's running mate on the unsuccessful Progressive ticket of 1912. He was reelected governor in 1914. In 1916, Johnson refused to support Charles E. Hughes, the Republican presidential candidate, and Hughes lost California and the election to Woodrow Wilson. Johnson himself was elected U.S. Senator on the Progressive ticket and, reelected four times, served in the Senate until his death. In 1920 he was a leading contestant for the Republican presidential nomination, but after Warren G. Harding was nominated, Johnson declined offers of the vice-presidential nomination ..
Hiram Johnson, Republican, Inaugural Address of the Governor of California. Second Inaugural Address.
The religion factor -- in 2001 Schwarzenegger donated a $2 million house to the Roman Catholic church. Schwarzenegger and family attend the same church as Bill Simon -- and Richard Riordan.
The Chronicle reports that Schwarzenegger favored Proposition 187 Calblog has an analysis.
2. Arnold is unqualified.Yes, he's not a professional politician. And that's a disadvantage? The professional politicians are the ones who got California into this mess. This is a "throw the bum out" election, so the successful challenger will be the one who looks least like the bum. Gray Davis has been on the public payroll his entire adult life: he represents the full-time political class. Arnold represents the other California: entrepreneurial energy, wit and invention, the California that understands that if Hollywood and Silicon Valley were run by "qualified" people like Davis we'd still be watching flickering silents and you'd need union-approved quill-feathers to send e-mail.
Arnold made his first business investment at 19, using savings from his bodybuilding contests to buy a failed Munich gym. He turned it around. The first really big money he made in America in the early 1970s came when he and a fellow bodybuilder started a bricklaying business. He's one of a very few actors who was a millionaire before he ever acted. And, if you think it's no big deal being the world's highest-paid movie star, you try it - with a guttural German accent so thick you can barely do dialogue and a body frame so large you're too goofy for playing love scenes. From his gym to his mail-order company to his masonry business to his shopping malls, Schwarzenegger has shown a consistent knack for exploiting the fullest financial value from even his most modest successes. Who would you say best embodies the spirit of California? The guy who has made all his own money? Or the fellows who've squandered everybody else's?
64% of Californians want Gray out -- 42% of voters likely to vote Schwarzenegger -- Cnn/USAToday poll. Here's the CNN version.
And this -- a majority of those polled say Schwarzenegger would do a better job than a career politician.
"I think Davis right now, obviously, is the underdog. Schwarzenegger is basically the incumbent .. It's his to lose."
The Angry Clam endorsed TomMcClintock for Governor.
Come to think of it, maybe the best thing Arnold could do for the California economy is stay in the private sector.
$chwarzenegger, Inc. -- tax returns to be disclosed today.
The TIME magazine California recall and race to replace poll.
TIME's Ahhnold!? cover story -- with more on the Clinton-Davis meeting in Chicago last week.
Does Gray Davis have the guts? Or, maybe a better quetion, how many millions will Gray Davis spend putting this on television during the family hour?:
-- a t-shirt design being sold over the internet yesterday.
(Matt Drudge, eat your heart out.)
The Arnold Schwarzenegger Soundboard -- and another one.
Bill Clinton provides Gray Davis with daily political advice -- after meeting with Davis last week in Chicago.
Maria Shriver praises her husband for his courage (it's a Kennedy thing) -- and gives him a soccer mom's endorsement:
"I think he is a serious, compassionate, smart, calm man and I think that he will represent Democrats, independents and Republicans all across this state. He is a born leader, he has inspired people for 30 years."
Ueberroth has at least $68 million he can put into play in the California recall race. Key question -- how bad does he want it?
The crazy aunt in the basement, er, California governor's race:
Ms. Huffington's first step in her "guerrilla campaign," as she called it, was a misstep, as she upset the microphone stand of the assembled news media, while trying work her way into a photo opportunity of Mr. Schwarzenegger, and his wife, Maria Shriver .. An awkward silence enveloped the morning crowd. Mr. Schwarzenegger smiled crookedly. Undeterred, Mrs. Huffington found a step behind the couple, smiled, and the photographers snapped away."Who is that lady?" someone in the crowd of onlookers asked.
The AP is reporting that over 130 people have actually filed in the race to replace. We'll see in a few days how many of these filings receive official confirmation from the Sec. of State.
Last I saw, "Michael Jackson" and "Edward Kennedy" where running .. it would be a hoot if these folks were on the ballot.
Schwarzenegger has filed a financial disclosure. Highlights:
-- Schwarzenegger has 20 holdings worth over a million dollars and about 40 investments valued between $100,000 and $1 million dollars.
-- Schwarzenegger's investments include stock in Starbucks, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Roto Rooter, Washington Post Co., Abbott Laboratories, Clorox Co., Target and Wal Mart Stores Inc.; millions of dollars in municipal bonds; and major real estate investments in Ohio and California. (Schwarzenegger owns a good chunk of Santa Monica and most all of Venice Beach, so the wags say).
A reality check for Mickey Kaus and that weird ex-wife of the gay former Congressman -- I don't think I know a soccer mom in California who doesn't own an SUV -- or (like PrestoMommy) at least really would like to have one. The fact that Schwarzenegger is the poster-stud of the rugged SUV-owning family man only makes the Soccer Mom's heart pound a bit faster.
PoliPundit has more spot on soccer mom political analysis:
No one seems to have a phrase to describe Arnold's politics. Is he a "conservative," a "moderate," a "liberal" or a "pragmatic libertarian?"None of the above. Arnold Schwarzenegger is... a Soccer Mom!
Your prototypical Soccer Mom isn't a hate-the-greedy-corporations Democrat. Heck, her husband is probably a middle manager at Procter & Gamble. She's a "fiscal conservative," in the sense that she doesn't want more taxes and regulation. She doesn't like affirmative action either, since it goes against her sense of fairness and threatens her childrens' future.
On the other hand, she doesn't want to be seen as a meanie. She thinks Republicans are too hard-edged on some issues. She wishes they were more "tolerant" of minority groups like gays and blacks. She's pro-choice, although she doesn't want abortion to be a widespread practice. She is, of course, an "environmentalist." And she's not averse to Big Government programs like Medicare and Social Security. An easy way to win her vote is to claim that some big-spending entitlement is "for the children." She doesn't see why ordinary people need assault rifles, but she can see why pilots should have pistols.
Now look at Arnold's stated beliefs - vague as they are - and see how they dovetail nicely with Soccer Mom values. When he comes out with detailed policy prescriptions, I bet they'll reflect Soccer Mom values too.
Democrats should be scared of Arnold. He has a massive advantage when it comes to the male vote. If he can appeal to Soccer Moms, he can also steal away women voters who ordinarily provide Democrats with their margin of victory.
(via InstaPundit)
More Roger Simon:
"This is going to be the best election ever from a theatrical standpoint .. Everyone can say all they want about all the nuts rolling across the continent into California, but who would want to miss this?"
-- quoted by Matt Welch. (via the BlogFather)
Richard Riordan will formally head Schwarzenegger's policy team.
Schwarzenegger leads the field by 10 percentage points. Support for Davis continues to collapse. (via California Insider).
Arnold Schwarzenegger's college degree -- a general business degree in international marketing from the University of Wisconsin in Superior, granted by correspondence, with classes taken at Santa Monica College, West L.A. University, and UCLA Extension. Schwarzenegger also has a California real estate licence.
Mr. California -- an Arnold profile from last November.
A quick quiz for Rush Limbaugh -- name the California governor who racked up annual 12 percent state spending increases and also signed one of the first pro-choice laws in the country. This governor also had "Hollywood values" when it came to gays. And he was well-known for not being much of a father to the kids from his second marriage. Get a grip Rush. We're electing a state Governor -- a politician -- not a Bishop in the church.
Another head-up for Rush and the rest of you national "conservatives" who haven't been keeping up with what is happening in California. The business problem in California is a regulation, bureaucracy and lawsuit problem, much more than it is a tax problem. Think workman's comp, hazardous materials lawsuits, union regulations, zoning, redevelopment ripoffs, construction regulations, and on and on. It will take a businessman -- a really smart businessman like Schwarzenegger -- to go and clean up this anti-business mess. Yes business taxes need to be cut -- but this is a secondary problem set next to the problems of workman's comp and all the rest.
Roger Simon fisks Timothy Noah -- as well as another wacky Kausfiles Arianna posting. In Simon's view, the real threat to Schwarzenegger is Rush Limbaugh (see PrestoPundit below).
And Simon explains why it will be Schwarzenegger in a landslide anyway:
What we are looking at here, folks, is press desperation for a story. This election is already over and everybody knows it. And here's why, in case you're one of those people who want to fight me on this (go ahead--make my day!). Imagine holding this election and Arnold loses. Think how the citizens of California are going to feel with some boring snooze of a Gray Davis clone of the right or left in the governor's office when they could have had the Terminator. Deprived is how they'll feel. Now think how they will vote.If you're looking for people against him, try New York. And that's because they're jealous. They're stuck with Pataki ..
California Insider predicts a huge voter turnout in the race to replace. He also ad libs a bit of campaign damage control strategy for Schwarzenegger on an issue likely to hit over the weekend.
Cruz Bustamante -- running for Governor of the Viejas Indian Reservation.
Peter Ueberroth is a registered Republican. Question for the lawyers, does this mean he will be listed as a Republican on the ballot?
Former California Governor Pete Wilson is Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign Co-Chairman.
Governor Schwarzenegger? "It's never going to happen." -- Rush Limbaugh, doing Q&A at Sports Illustrated.
The Democrat who should be running for governor -- former state Controller Kathleen Connell. She put Gray Davis and the legislature on notice more than two years ago that the state's finances were in meltdown. This is her important WSJ op-ed piece with Matt Fong, from last week:
Given the magnitude of this crisis, fundamental reform of state finances cannot wait until the recall's conclusion. It must be the focus of the debate leading up to the recall election, and the measuring stick for all candidates on the ballot.It is time for Californians to awaken to the immediacy of the economic threat that undermines the future of our state, risks the success of our businesses, and reduces the quality of life for our citizens. It is time for taxpayers, as shareholders in the state of California, to demand the fiduciary responsibility that is required of any corporate director. Just as the shareholder has forced corporate America to a new standard of transparency and accountability, so should the California taxpayer require those standards replace backroom negotiations and accounting gimmicks in the state budget process.
Over the coming weeks, all gubernatorial candidates should be measured by their response to specific proposals to restructure state government's fiscal operations. Many previous legislative proposals, some sponsored by us as state officials, have urged these common-sense reforms. NGOs like the Reason Foundation and Performance Institute, think tanks specializing in government reform, have also highlighted significant opportunities for restructuring.
To end the financial crisis, the recall debate should focus on these simple but powerful imperatives:
� Implement a watertight expenditure and revenue limit to bring state spending into balance with available revenues and avoid the "feast and famine" cycle of the current system.
� Create the most jobs-friendly climate in the nation through fundamental regulatory and tax reform that would provide the state with a growing revenue pie. Workers' compensation insurance reform should be high on this list.
� Shift the state to a two-year budget cycle, currently used by more than 20 states, to increase legislative oversight and eliminate the potential of spending deferrals and accounting gimmicks.
� Use performance-based budgeting that requires every state agency to justify every dollar spent based on performance goals and savings targets. Currently the legislature only reviews new budget spending proposals, simply assuming previous year's expenditures are acceptable.
� Create a competitive government structure with the requirement of open bidding for state services, including public and private sectors.
� Appoint a budget oversight commission to review progress toward reform goals and enact midyear budget changes as needed. This commission would function similar to the federal base realignment and closure commission that made politically unpopular decisions regarding closure of military bases. Such a commission could become the independent watchdog, akin to a bankruptcy judge in a corporate restructuring.
All these may seem to be common sense to most of us. Yet given the dynamics of state budget politics, no such principles exist in California and the gap between spending and revenues has escalated to the current $38 billion deficit.
The recall election will determine the leadership of California. If the state misses this opportunity to ask the right questions of its leaders and candidates and allows a continuation of the same pattern of deferral and denial, the problem will worsen and next year's budget crisis will make this one look like a picnic. Then, it will matter little who sits in the governor's office.
(thanks to Internet Ronin)
Schwarzenegger is the most disciplined person I've ever met in my life -- former Lt. Gov. Mike Curb, today on one of the cable channels.
The man most responsible for making Mayor Richard Riordan possible -- Hugh Hewitt comes out strong for Schwarzenegger:
REASONS TO SUPPORT ARNOLD: Rush is reported to be slamming the AS candidacy. I haven't heard him do so, but many conservatives are most definitely doing so, so here are the reasons why center-right Republicans and conservative Republicans should vote for AS:1. AS can win. The others in the race who would make acceptable governors --Bill Simon, Tom McClintock, and Peter Ueberroth-- cannot marshall enough votes to top the almost certain 25 to 30% that Cruz Bustamante will roll up. Objectivity matters a great deal here, and even if AS hadn't gotten into the race, the presence of more than one "movement" candidate dooms them all. Period. End of story. Arguing this point doesn't change the facts on the ground ..
5. Finally, the state is in desperate shape. AS is right, businesses and talent are fleeing. Unless the bleeding stops, this economy continues to drag the national economy down, and with them both, the re-elect numbers of the President.
The purists have to get over it and get behind a winning effort.
And I loved this:
There ought to be a ban on east coast opinion purveyors rattling on about California politics. It is a different world. Here's my test. Can you name the Speaker of the Assembly? Do you know the campaign manager for Cruz and the other statewide office holder he represents? Whom did Bruce Herschensohn beat in the 1992 Senate primary? Whom did Jerry Brown beat in the 1978 gov race? California politics are as complicated as most nations', and the canard that you have to be a moderate Republican to win out here without explanation of the Duke's successes (no, not Wayne) or of Feinstein's pummeling of Tom Campbell is a giveaway of an amateur come to play in the sun.
A prime example of the Right coast idiocy? I can't count how many talking heads blathered on about Schwarzenegger announcing his candidacy for governor on the Tonight Show -- and how degrading this was. But in California Schwarzenegger didn't make his announcement on the Tonight Show -- he made his announcement hours earlier in a press conference carried live by all of the local news channels. The additional Tonight Show excitement bumb for the Schwarzenegger campaign wasn't broadcast till hours later -- and it wasn't California "news" of an official announcement at that point, it was a Schwarzenegger campaign rally watched by millions of Californias who already knew that Schwarzenegger was running for governor. Well, just one example how the right coasters haven't got a clue, and I could fill a blog with them.
Virginia Postrel asks: "But did [Schwarzenegger] really start a campaign without getting some policy briefings beforehand?"
The answer -- reported yesterday here on PrestoPundit -- is no. Not only is Schwarzenegger briefed, he's focus-grouped, polled, and advised by the smartest and most successful political people in California on the Republican side of the fence -- including one well-known former governor of the state. And the first rule in the book is that first impressions in politics are the most important -- and you want ALL of these to be very, very positive "on message" impressions. In other words, Schwarzenegger is getting straight A's for open-day politics. He isn't going for the wonks right now -- he's going for the general public. And it ain't rocket science here. You want to put out all the core themes that pull in the vast millions of voters -- and you want to save for another day all the stuff just doesn't matter that much at the moment and in the whole scheme of things, the stuff that first impression folks might trip up on, if that is all they know about the candidate. This is politics 101 folks.
He's on the web. joinarnold.com
California's political history and traditions were laid down nearly ninety years ago by the progressive reforms of Hiram Johnson. The principles were clear: bipartisanship was cherished, progress was prized over politics and the will of the people was paramount. It was upon these principles that our state was built. California became a beacon for the rest of the nation and the world.But today we are in a different place. There is an enormous disconnect between the people of California and the politicians of California. We the people, are doing our job--working hard, paying our taxes and raising our families. They, the politicians are not doing their job. They fiddle, they fumble, and they fail.
It is time to return California to the people.
Is Peter Ueberroth a PrestoPundit reader? Well, if not, maybe his political people are -- anyway, like PrestoPundit Tuesday, Ueberroth is talking about a California death spiral. This from his announcement as a candidate in the race to replace:
I will build a bipartisan administration to stop California's compounding economic death spiral while it is still possible, reverse it and put California back on track ..
Here's a free heads-up for national political analysts -- George Bush's re-election will likely turn on the state of the economy. And the national economy is in trouble only if you include California. Take California out of the equation, and the national economy is in pretty good shape. For example, in June, unemployment totals were down nationally -- if you excluded California. They were up if you included California. This month, nearly half of all job losses in the country were California jobs.
So Bush's re-election very likely will turn on what happens in the California economy -- and that in turn very likely will depend on whether or not Arnold Schwarzenegger replaces Gray Davis in the Sacramento governor's office.
443 -- the number of people who have taken out the papers required to file in the race to replace. 17 -- the number of people how have submitted a completed filing. Zero -- the number of candidates who have so far been certified in the race to replace. Tomorrow is the last day to file. The list of certified candidates will be released by the Sec. of State Aug. 13.
Some Proposition 54 News Updates. And a Proposition 54 FAQ page.
Here is the Sec. of State's Recall Election information page.
You can register to vote in California via a combination of the internet and the U.S. mail here. If you register by internet, the Sec. of State office recommends that you do so by Sept. 12 at the latest, due to mail delivery time. The official last day to register for the October 7 recall and replacement election is September 22nd. If you'd like to vote for Schwarzenegger, McClintock -- or perhaps one of the circus performers favored by the TV news reporters and just-for-fun bloggers, the time to register is NOW.
"Like surgeons sometimes say, sometimes you have to cut in order to save the patient" -- Arnold Schwartzenegger
Limbaugh continues with his daily Schwarzenegger bashing -- transcript and audio links. But even Limbaugh admits, "there is a part of this you just have to love".
The guest bloggers over at Calblog are serving up lots of tasty California recall treats -- don't miss out.
I'm a fiscal conservative .. very conservative .. and a social moderate -- Arnold Schwarzenegger on the campaign trail today.
When Milton Friedman and Arnold Schwarzenegger sit down for a meal together what do they talk about? -- the economics of Friedrich Hayek of course!
California political consultant Bob White on the record -- talking about Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson, the Browns, and Arnold's big blue ring ... Quotable:
"[Running for Governor] wasn't my idea," White says. "It was his. His passion is impressive. I have never known a person of more intensity .. He's the most instinctive human being I've ever met in my life. He amazes me with his sincerity."
"I think he'd be a good governor." -- Former Texas governor George Bush on Arnold Schwarzenegger.
LA Times -- we should blame the victim for California's governmental disaster. And the Times comes out swinging against Schwarzenegger, saying Schwarzenegger needs to be investigated by the press the same way David Duke was investigated in Louisiana. (I.e. the Times drops the "Nazi" card by insinuation). and the Times comes up with a former Republican speech writer with real vitrol for Schwarzenegger. He's a "Democrat in a Republican loincloth", among other things.
Well, this is the paper that prints the ravings of the Robert Sheer, who once touted North Korea as the model for all mankind. What did you expect?
Schwarzenegger appearance sets off a frenzy. Quotable:
"I have a very, very good agenda," he said. "The first and most important thing that we have to do is we have to overhaul our economic agenda and California. We have to bring back businesses to California, to make sure that everyone in California has a great job, a fantastic job.""The second-most important thing is our children. . . . I'm very passionate about children's issues," he said. "It is very important that our children have the first access to our state treasury, and the money, so that they can have great schools and great education."
Then, he took questions about details, details, details.
What about a plan to cut the budget?
"We will have a detailed plan very soon on how to face those kinds of problems, and how to solve those kinds of problems," he said. "The important thing is to know that we have a crisis here in California."
What about that Hummer? How does he stand on the environment?
"I have always been environmentally friendly, and I will fight for the environment," he said. "Nothing to worry about that."
Immigration?
"I love immigrants. You know, I'm an immigrant myself."
What kind of campaign are you going to run?
"As you know, I believe in selling, selling a philosophy," he said. "The same thing as I did on Prop. 49 (the after-school care initiative). I will be going to every school, I will be knocking on doors. I will be going from one TV station to the next. I will be going to fund-raisers. I will be reaching out to families. I will talk to everyone."
His qualifications to be governor?
"The most important thing to have when you run a state is leadership . . . and in everything I ever did, I showed great leadership. There were times when people said it could never be done, that an Austrian farm boy can come over to America, and get in the movie business, and be successful. . . . And you know what happened? I became the highest-paid entertainer in the world."
Rev. Lou Sheldon endorses Simon, questions whether Schwarzenegger is actually a Republican
The recall election could be make or brake for California business. More news on how California government is killing the Golden geese that lay the Golden State eggs.
Outside the box -- Schwarzenegger is an idea man and a serious student of politics, and it won't easy for the blow-dried hacks to get a label that fits around his neck. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger said his first exposure to politics was the U.S. presidential campaign in 1968, the year he arrived in America. He had a friend translate the speeches of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey and Republican Richard Nixon. Humphrey talked about protectionism and more government planning, the actor said, which "sounded a lot like socialism in Austria." Nixon talked about "less government, lower taxes, the free market, international trade and a strong military." "After the translator finished, I realized: Yes! I am a Republican," Schwarzenegger said. "I pretty much thought it was as simple as the movies: The Republicans were the good guys, and the Democrats were the bad guys." Schwarzenegger said he later starting touring the county for the Special Olympics and "learned how America really worked. And what I realized was this: both parties had good ideas. So it's dead wrong to see things only as us versus them."
Lileks The Bleat. Quotable:
Listened to much radio commentary today on the Arnie candidacy, and as usual there was much lamenting and rending of garments on the ironclad right; he�s not this, he�s not that, he said this, he sleeps with a Shriver, etc. I am always mystified by people who would rather die pure than live with imperfections. Every candidate will always disappoint, somehow. Any candidate with whom you agree 100% is probably unelectable. If your bumpersticker says DON�T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR AYN RAND I'm not particularly impressed. �Cause she�s dead and none of that stuff is going to happen. Doesn�t mean we can�t keep the ideas in play, but if you don�t vote because no candidate vows to privatize the sewage systems and disband the Food and Drug Administration, don�t come crying to me when your marginal tax rate hits 71 percent.
Schwarzenegger's true liberal roots. Quotable:
I come from Austria, a socialistic country. There you can hear 18-year-olds talking about their pension. But me, I wanted more. I wanted to be the best. Individualism like that is incompatible with socialism. I felt I had to come to America, where the government wasn't always breathing down your neck or standing on your shoes.
Spooky has some nice things to say about her Congressman. You don't see that every day.
Schwarzenegger becomes a Republican. Money quote:
ARNOLD THE REPUBLICAN is sometimes compared to Ronald Reagan because of their showbiz pedigrees, but there was one reason Arnold signed on with the GOP: Richard Nixon. While watching a Nixon speech in 1968, one which a friend translated because Arnold's English was still so spotty, his friend told him, "He's a Republican--it's the wrong party." But listening to Nixon advocate a stronger military, "getting the government off our back," and opening up trade, "I said, 'No, I love what this guy is saying. If this guy is a Republican, then I am a Republican."
Arnold turns the key -- Schwarzenegger may surprise some folks as he exits the starting gates in the race for Governor of California. Quotable:
.. Schwarzenegger has spent the summer assembling an experienced campaign team. It consists mostly of the brain trust that guided Wilson through two terms as governor. Aides have conducted polls, listened to voter focus groups about Schwarzenegger�s strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, and prepared policy stands on many issues.�All he has to do now is turn the key,� one of his advisers said.
Schwarzenegger takes out papers in race for governor, tells crowd he's ready to overhaul California's economic engine.
The New York Times has a California race to replace page.
John Fund's latest on Schwarzenegger and California's race to replace.
Richard Riordan conferred with Arnold Schwarzenegger Thursday afternoon, and made it official -- he's endorsing Schwarzenegger's run in the race to replace. Riordan issued a statement which read in part:
"This recall election offers us a choice: We can either continue with politics as usual in California, or we can elect someone who works on behalf of every Californian, not just the special interests. As I have said many times, I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is a very talented man who would make an excellent governor."
USA TODAY covers Schwarzenegger and the California race to replace.
Quotable Arnold:
SCHWARZENEGGER: "There's businesses leaving every day. There's people leaving the state every day. We see a budget that is the biggest budget deficit that we've ever had in the history of California. We see our ratings, the junk bond ratings that we are getting. That is disastrous. We see a governor that is being recalled. We see an education system that is last in the country. We just see things declining and declining and declining, and the biggest problem that we have is that California is being run now by special interests. All of the politicians are not any more making the moves for the people but for special interests, and we have to stop that. And so this is why I'm running for governor. I will go to Sacramento and I will clean house. I will change that. As you know, I don't need to take any money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make the decisions for the people."
SCHWARZENEGGER: "I know that the people of California want to have better leadership. They want to have great leadership. They want to have somebody that will represent them. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, if you're young or old, what the racial thing is - nothing matters to me. To me what matters is that I want to represent everyone in California. That is the important thing."
MALE REPORTER: "What about the immigrant population?"
SCHWARZENEGGER: "Everyone is welcome. As you know, I'm an immigrant. I came over here as an immigrant and what gave me the opportunities, what made me be able to be here today, is the open arms of Americans. I have been received. I've been adopted to America. I have gotten all the opportunities because of America. I've seen firsthand coming over here with empty pockets, but full of dreams, full of desire, full of will to succeed. It's because of the opportunities that I had available that I could make it, and that's what I want everybody to be able to do."
Quotes pulled rom the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's fisking of Arnold Schwarzenegger on today's radio program.
Recall supporter Darrell Issa says that Schwarzenegger's entry into the race to replace has convinced him that there are enough good candidates for governor, and that he will turn his attention back to supporting President Bush's effort to bring peace to the Middle East. Issa made a surprise withdrawl announcement earlier today -- just hours after sending out a press release officially announcing his candidacy for governor.
Another McClintock Republican makes the case for Schwarzenegger:
Because of his enormous celebrity status and the fact that he can command huge media attention .. he is perhaps the one person who could seriously intimidate the Democrats in the state legislature to back down on some things. Arnold is absolutely right that the legislature is a wholly-own subsidiary of the liberal interest groups (especially the public employee unions and the trial lawyers). This stranglehold is much worse than anything from the railroad robber baron days. The big question is whether Arnold is serious about breaking this stranglehold; if he is not he shouldn't bother running. The fear is that even though a nominal Republican, he will end up more like the feckless Jesse Ventura, who found the limits of celebrity fairly quickly. So far in the first 24 hours, Arnold has made the right noises, and he has around him the very experienced and savvy Pete Wilson team, which, say what you will about Gov. Wilson, knew how to win elections and govern effectively.I place the odds at about once chance in three that Arnold would turn out to be the serious reformer I envision here, but if so, he has a better chance of succeeding than the other Republicans. Any other Republican is going to face all-out war from the Democrats and special interest groups.
Video gamers for Schwarzenegger. Quotable:
The more I read about him, the more I do want to vote for him. I'm a democrat too, I guess. It's much easier to trust him than some puckered anus politician. Plus, it'd be hard for guys and gals my age to NOT vote for him. I mean jeez, the guy was my hero!
Michael Huffington endorses Arnold Schwarzenegger -- and he takes this swipe at his ex-wife:
"This week my children told me that they did not want their parents to run in this election - either of us," [Huffington] said in the statement. "In consideration of my two young daughters, I have determined that entering the governor's race would not be in the best interest of my children."
From an LA Times update of unfolding events, posted this afternoon.
Here is Begging to Differ's Schwarzenegger blog roundup. (Via Instapundit)
Richard Riordan endorses Schwarzenegger, and tells Arnold he was "pleasantly surprised" by Schwarzenegger's announcement yesterday -- according to Schwarzenegger in a public statement today, as the candidate took out papers needed to file in the race to replace the current Governor of California. Schwarzenegger says that in daily conversations with Riordan the former mayor of Los Angeles repeatedly urged him to run for governor of California -- and this tracks with Dick Riordan's quoted remarks in the press (see below).
Flashback: Daniel Weintraub -- "Arnold for Governor would be a powerful candidate".
You don't say! Weintraub on what you didn't know about Schwarzenegger and "Why Arnold will win if he runs".
Blogging Arnold and the race to replace -- HobbsOnline, InstaPundit; DrudgeReport; LILEKS; Calblog; Boomshock; Bound in a Nutshell; Pathetic Earthlings; PatioPundit; LA Observed; and Hugh Hewitt. Let me quote Hewitt, dean of the LA political analysts:
I think Arnold's a winner because he took his front runner status and married it to a huge issue. Arnold denounced the control of special interests over all of Sacramento. The railroad barons had nothing on the public employee unions, the tribes, and the trial lawyers when it comes to owning the California government. When Arnold took aim at this undeniable fact, he won many votes. He also put his finger squarely on the crisis of the day: Businesses and people are fleeing the state.Arnold is quite simply the Shore Patrol come to restore order to a drunken bunch of sailors otherwise known as state legislators.
"As you know, I'm an immigrant. I came over here as an immigrant. What gave me the opportunities was the open arms of Americans .. I have been adopted by America."
An emotional and passionate Arnold Schwarzenegger, yesterday in Los Angeles, explaining his beliefs about California, economic opportunity and the promise of American democracy.
Riordan "Stunned" .. political consultant George Gorton "floored".
Clip -- Arnold's press conference and Tonight Show appearance.
With Schwarzenegger roaming the plains and with Gray Davis's poll numbers heading south of the border, the Democratic wagons are scattering in all directions -- Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante has announced that he's broken ranks with Gray Davis and he will be running in the race to replace the (soon-to-be-former) Governor of California.
The best part of Schwarzenegger's Tonight Show talk was his seeming tolerance. ... He had nice things to say about Arianna Huffington, Bill Simon, Darrell Issa -- even Hillary Clinton.
Not the best part, but an important part (see my remarks below). And for reasons a bit different than Mickey suggests. This was important because it so bespoke a man who is mature, self-confident, and quite self-aware of the nature of the political arena and the dignity of those who participate within it -- even when political folks are merely playing out a political role. In other words, it revealed Schwarzenegger as a grownup -- not only as a human being, but as a politician. And a bigger man than so many of the little pigmies in both Sacramento and Hollywood.
Schwarzenegger line I liked: Of course Gray Davis knows how to run a dirty campaign, but he doesn't know how to run a state.
Schwarzenegger impressions:
This is a man of conviction -- a man with genuine faith in California, democratic government, a free society and the American people.
This is a man of passion -- a man with passionate concern for young people, for working families, and for the land of his dreams.
This is a man who wants to get things done -- he wants nothing less than to break the back of the politicians and special interests -- and reconnect the people of California with their government and their state.
In Schwarzenegger's presentation you heard the heart of the young man who came to the Golden State to pursue his dreams -- and the mature and fair-minded grownup who understands how a democracy functions and respects the honorable contribution of his peers in the political arena.
And you also got the sense of the firm drive of a man setting about accomplishing the task at hand -- a man who understands that winning is righteous, something deserved, it's not, as Gray Davis might believe, just about winning.
And in all of these things Schwarzenegger is the genuine heir of Ronald Reagan -- but surprising as it might seem, in all of these things (except for perhaps the last) Schwarzenegger seem more genuine than Ronald Reagan -- more deeply passionate, more deeply connected with his convictions.
Perhaps this reflects nothing more than the fact that Ronald Reagan's passions came so naturally to him -- as a sort of birthright -- while for Schwarzenegger they were and are the emotional choices of a man who has adopted a dream -- and who in turn has been adopted by the people of that dream.
James Cameron on Arnold Schwarzenegger:
"Arnold has great presence, timing, and self-knowledge. For a lot of actors, acting is a very convoluted process. They don't know how to get from here to there, because they don't know where there' is. Arnold does.
Substitute "politics" for "acting" and you've got what we've seen from Schwarzenegger today at his press conference and in his Tonight Show bombshell .. timing, presence, self-knowledge -- and a strong sense of knowing where he -- and we -- need to be going. This sort of knowledge is as important as anything in politics. And it's quality which defines what the state so desperately lacks and so desperately needs -- the vision and self-confidence of leadership.
ARNOLD : THE EDUCATION OF A BODYBUILDER -- currently at no. 6,377 on the Amazon sales list. Look for this book to crack the Amazon top 100 in the next day or two, as reporters break out in a Schwarzenegger for Governor feeding frenzy. Click down to read chapter one.
Tip for reporters -- most of the Schwarzenegger biographies are out of print. Only a few second-hand copies are available in the country. Better snap up a copy while you can. But no worries, here's one that's still in print:
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Man of Action
Fox News -- Schwarzenegger to run. Lots of good details on the big story in California politics.
He's in! Hollywood star makes surprise announcement that he'll run in California recall election.
Quotable Arnold, announcing his run for Governor, today in Los Angeles:
"As you know, I'm an immigrant. I came over here as an immigrant, and what gave me the opportunities, what made me to be here today, is the open arms of Americans. I have been received. I have been adopted by America.""I've seen firsthand coming here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of desire, full of will to succeed, but with the opportunities that I had, I could make it. This is why we have to get back and bring California back to where it once was."
Schwarzenegger is the right cure to pull California out of its collective depression psychologist says.
California Insider weighs in on Schwarzenegger, pulling out this money quote from the 800 pound gorilla in the race for Governor of California:
�The most important thing is that we bring business back in California,� he said. �More businesses are leaving California than ever before. When business comes back, revenue comes back. When revenues come back, we can afford all kinds of programs that are very important.� -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at his press conference today.
Weintraub's analysis is spot on, and definitely worth a read.
"I decided to run for governor of this great state because I feel very strongly that we have some serious problems in this state. We have businesses leaving here every day. We have people leaving the state every day. We see a budget that is the biggest budget deficit that we have ever had in the history of California. We see a governor that is being recalled, we see an educational system that is last in the country, we just see things declining and declining and declining. The biggest problem that we have is that California is being run now by special interests. All of the politicians are not any more making the moves for the people, but for special interests and we have to stop that. And so, this is why I am running for governor. I will go to Sacramento and I will clean house."
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger -- announcing his candidacy for Governor of California.
Schwarzenegger, announcing it's a go in race for Governor:
�We just see things declining and declining and declining. ... California now is being run by special interests. We have to stop that.�
Schwarzenegger -- wife Maria will vote Republican for very first time in October.
Out takes from the Schwarzenegger press conference .. top Schwarzenegger priorities -- (1) put California back in business; (2) fix the broken state budget, (3) return California from the very bottom to the top in education.
A stunned George Gorton meets with Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss what happens next -- Gorton was live on the phone from his car on KFI's John and Ken show.
Schwarzenegger.com to post Schwarzenegger's official announcement shortly.
LA Times -- Schwarzenegger Will Run in Recall Election. Quotable:
"The people are doing their job in California, the politicians are not doing their job. The person who has failed the people more than anyone is Gray Davis and that is why I'm going to run for governor."
NBC4 -- Schwarzenegger Says He Will Run For Governor:
"I think that it was very clear to me that the decision would be difficult to make," said Schwarzenegger, during the appearance.Schwarzenegger praised his wife Maria Shriver and said he had a lot of conversations with her leading up to the decision. "We talked about all that, the movie career ... there will be less time for the children ... what affect it has on the children," he said.
"I know they're going to throw everything at me -- that i have no experience, that i'm a womanizer ... We all know that Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign better than anyone, but we also know he doesn't know how to run a state," said Schwarzenegger.
"The people should make the decisions rather than special interests," said Schwarzennegger, who added that ""no one can pay me off."
"This is the land of opportunity and I can promise you that when I go to Sacramento, I will pump up Sacramento," said Schwarzennegger.
AP -- Schwarzenegger to run for Calif. governor. Quotable:
"The politicians are fiddling, fumbling and failing," he said. "The man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis. He is failing them terribly, and this is why he needs to be recalled and this is why I am going to run for governor."
Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday announced his decision to run for governor in the state's recall election during an appearance on the "Tonight Show With Jay Leno."
Flashback:
".. Arnold Schwarzenegger is my first choice ... (He) would do a tremendous job .. (Arnold) has a graduate degree in business. He started the Inner City Games ... Arnold is somebody who cares ... and I think he'd be a terrific governor."
-- Richard Riordan last Thursday.
Gray Davis's worst nightmare -- Arnold Schwarzenegger to run!
California Race to Replace Time-Line
Aug. 9 - Candidate Filing Deadline
Aug. 11 - Order Of Candidates On Ballot Determined
Aug. 13 - Certified List Of Candidates Available
Sept. 22 - Voter Registration Deadline
Sept. 23 - Write-In Candidate Deadline
Sept. 27 - Voter Guide Mailed Out
Sept. 30 - Deadline To Apply For Absentee Ballot
Oct. 7 - Special Recall Election
"Our state is in dire dire trouble ... We not only have the biggest deficit ... We have the most anti-business state ... Our housing, our education, our health care are in shambles .. "
Is the illegal labor market creating a California death spiral?
It looks like Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi will be the big name Democrat who will make the jump first into the race to replace.
Schwarzenegger will announce tonight on the Jay Leno show that he's not running for governor of California -- but he still hasn't let his top political aid in on the news:
"I hope that the suspense will end for me today. . . . I believe he's not going to run, but he's certainly left me in the dark."
-- George Gorton. In the mean time Gorton is in talks with Dick Riordan about the possibility of running the Riordan campaign in the race to replace.
"What exactly we do on Wednesday has not been decided. [Arnold Schwarzenegger] said to me this morning, 'Don't assume I'm not running.'"
-- George Gorton.
John Fund's continuing California recall coverage. Quotable:
Shawn Steel, a former Republican Party state chairman, says that Mr. Schwarzenegger was running full tilt and hiring a large campaign staff until signals suddenly changed about 10 days ago. He speculates that Mr. Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, were reminded that a top Democratic strategist had warned the LA Weekly his foes would wage a vicious personal campaign against him through the tabloids.
Quotable:
Even Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to admit the obvious after tonight: This was all one giant publicity stunt.
-- Ellis Henican, Newsday.
Say it ain't so, Arnold.
California government -- a role model for the nation.
As Calblog points out, as of 4 p.m. today NOBODY yet completed the process of filing in the race to replace Gray Davis. See for yourself here. Seven individuals have actually paid the $3,500 filing fee.
As of yesterday, there were only seven candidates who will be running for governor . Remember to take notes next time you hear otherwise -- and then remember which press sources are not to be relied upon for accurate information.
The Man Without Qualities reminds us what Mayor Riordan meant for Los Angeles --
and for those who just wanted a decent cup of coffee at LAX.
The Krugman Truth Squad fisks Krugman on the California budget. ZAP!
"If it's a campaign about Gray Davis, we lose." -- State Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland
And this:
"There would not be a meeting among Democratic senators today if they didn't have a good reason. This is Chernobyl. Gray Davis is melting down, and the Democrats want to escape the radiation." -- Schwarzenegger adviser Sean Walsh
An analysis of California's coin-operated Governor and other commentary from the guest bloggers this week at Calblog.
George Will is back with one of his periodic very stupid columns -- this time equating the attempt of California citizens to save their state with the political knife-fighting of professional politicians. Does George ever get out of his townhouse, other than to go to the television studio? The column reminds me of some of those very high principle articles Will wrote condemning term limits -- just before he did a 180 on the issue and then wrote a book in support of the idea. Will George figure out that he's got the California recall all wrong as well?
That 3 columns a week requirement can be a real reputation killer.
A worthwhile reminder from Calblog -- nobody is yet running in the race to replace because no one has yet filed the 65 signatures and ponied up the $3,500 filing fee. So all you're reading and hearing in the media right now about this weirdo and that high school student "running for governor" is ad selling baloney.
Matt Welch on Gray Davis.
(Yes, I know Instapundit beat me to link. Not the first time. But I've beaten him also. And there might be at least one or two of you out there haven't yet checked out the InstaMan, also known as The BlogFather).
The leading argument I keep hearing from Democrats arguing against the recall is that recalls are wrong .. and we really should be doing is recalling George Bush. A totally incoherent position, of course, but this is gut level politics, not propositional logic.
The Davis dirt begins to fly:
.. the Davis team is ready to go on the offensive. The governor's opposition research team is led by Ace Smith, a San Francisco-based consultant who worked on Riordan's 1997 re-election campaign and is well-versed in the mayor's weaknesses.Riordan may be ready to paint himself as a turnaround artist who rescued Los Angeles, but the Davis team is set to cast him as a bumbler who left the city in worse shape.
If Riordan runs, Democrats would dredge up a plan to home in on the city's divisive police scandal, focus attention on the companies Riordan shut down as an aggressive businessman, and depict him as an imperial leader with a short attention span.
``He was not a person who worked well with other people, and that would be a huge problem up here,'' said Democratic Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, who repeatedly clashed with Riordan when she served on the Los Angeles City Council.
Davis' allies sent a warning shot across the bow last week by suggesting to the San Francisco Chronicle's political gossip columnists that Democrats would imply that Riordan is losing his mind.
Heads up for Bill Lockyer -- better check to make sure that lifevest is going to work ...
Unions & leftists mobilize to protect their go-to man in the California spoils game.
As if by magic Democrat Sec. of State Kevin Shelley more than doubles his estimate of the cost of recall to $67 million. (via California Insider)
Democrat strongholds in metro SF and LA want to keep Gray Davis -- everyone else in the state wants to give this failed governor the boot. Quotable:
Philip Dobbs is befuddled. Sitting beside Market Street in the cool shadows cast by the San Francisco skyline, he picks at his lunch distractedly, not comprehending the political upheaval that has gripped his state. "No one here wanted to recall Gray Davis," says the goateed paralegal. "It's a big waste of money."Donita Morris, however, has no such confusion. Taking refuge from the Central Valley's 103-degree F. heat in the skylit vault of the Roseville Galleria mall, she openly laughs when Governor Davis's name is mentioned. "It's just one mess after another, and it needs to change," she says ..
While Los Angeles was almost evenly divided on the question of removing Davis, the rest of southern California wanted to oust Davis by a margin of 57 percent to 36 percent. Likewise, while 57 percent of the Bay Area respondents opposed the recall, 56 percent of the rest of northern California supported it. Support ran even higher in the Central Valley ..
If Christopher Bello is any indication, Davis will have some work to do. Along a nearly deserted section of Roseville's Vernon Street, the short-sleeved and bushy-haired businessman pauses reluctantly in the late-afternoon heat. He says he does not affiliate strongly with either party, but he supports the recall because of the budget debacle. "Davis said the deficit was a certain amount before the [2002] election, then came out after the election and said something different."
Although Davis maintains that he was merely reporting the estimates of the nonpartisan state budget officer, Mr. Bello retorts: "I just don't think he's been a good leader."
The comments resonate across the city, from the nearby freight yard threaded by squealing train cars to the Roseville Galleria, an umber palace outside town. Seated in an armchair amid air conditioning, the potent smell of scented candles, and a seemingly endless permutation of Gap stores, Ms. Morris senses that this revolt has been building for a long time.
"People just see that now it's time to do something," she says.
Being "able to recall elected governors solely on the basis of their performance in office" -- is a good idea. So say the majority of Californians -- and also the majority of Americans.
Note well -- Gallop has a decisive majority of Californian's favoring the recall of Governor Gray Davis. It's 54% / 43% in favor of turning Davis out of office, with only a tiny 3% still without an opinion. Californian's have made up their minds, and what they've decided is that the state needs to say goodbye to this hopelessly failed governor.
XRLQ notes that if everyone runs who's taken out race to replace papers, the California recall will have earned the cash strapped state nearly a half-million dollars in candidate registration fees. With the national press flooding into California, the recall may turn out to be a net money maker for the state.
"I'm just going to do everything I can � until informed otherwise � to fight against the recall. Right now, as far as I know, we're all fighting against the recall."
-- Hillary Clinton, leaving room for the likelyhood that Senate colleague Dianne Feinstein might indeed seek to replace Gray Davis.
Davis's back-alley boys all set for a Riordan bloodbath. A Gray Davis insider is quoted as saying that with last year's viciously bare-knuckled campaign against Richard Riordan, "We were just getting warmed up".
Those who put their money where their mouth is have Davis out as Governor.
Riordan -- "the presumptive front-runner" in the race to replace.
Dick Riordan says he'll likely run in the race to replace -- and will announce next week. Quotable:
Clint Reilly, an unpaid adviser to Riordan, said Riordan has decided his campaign team will include George Gorton, a veteran California campaign manager, and former mayoral adviser Noelia Rodriguez, who now serves as first lady Laura Bush's press secretary. Reilly said Riordan moved quickly to assemble a team and strategy after learning last weekend that Schwarzenegger was close to deciding against a run.
Riordan looks for a campaign team -- and considers taking on Schwarzenegger's political advisors.
Schwarzenegger to announce decision Wednesday on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Richard Riordan is going to allow as little time as possible for Gray Davis to launch a trademark smear campaign against him -- hence his delayed announcement in the race to replace the sitting governor. So reports the NY Times:
A former top aide to Mr. Riordan said there was a fascinating dynamic playing out between him and Mr. Schwarzenegger. "Riordan is being heavily pressured by Schwarzenegger," the aide said, "to get in as early as possible," feeling that as more time passes without a commitment from either, both are made to look bad. "But nobody in the Riordan camp thinks getting in right away is a great idea. They want to wait until the 11th hour so he can't be attacked."
In other words, rather than being undecided, Schwarzanegger is simply waiting for the Riordan campaign launch before he goes before the cameras to announce that he won't be running -- and that he's back Riordan for governor. That's pretty close to what Daniel Weintraub was reporting several days ago.
California lays an egg:
Wall Street isn't taking too kindly to the notion of the state pushing off its huge budget problems to next year. California "seems to be going in the wrong direction," David Hitchcock, director of state and local government ratings at Standard & Poors, told reporters in a conference call. Hitchcock said the state is relying on "massive borrowing" and one-time fixes while ignoring the fact that shrinking revenues can't keep up with statewide spending.
.. and Bob Dole wants to be governor of California.
Daniel Weintraub:
Riordan had more than Gray Davis to blame for his defeat. Riordan ran last year as the candidate of leadership and vision while offering little of either. His campaign was so sloppy it left close observers questioning whether the former two-term mayor of Los Angeles had what it took to be governor.Now, with his friend Arnold Schwarzenegger pulling back, Riordan might step forward as a candidate to replace Davis should the attempt to recall the governor succeed. But Riordan will surely fail again if he doesn't learn the right lessons from his disastrous run a year ago ...
Read it all. This is the good stuff.
It took two years of litigation before the Hollywood Bowl was allowed to build a new band shell replacing a ridiculously outdated shell with famously bad acoustics. Economists use the term "rent seeking" to explain how lawyers have designed the legal system for themselves -- like a protection racket the lawyers are assured a gigantic cut of the pie before anything productive can begin.
Gray Davis is "toast" -- Nancy Pelosi.
John Fund reports in today's Opinion Journal that state Democrats increasingly view Davis as a "goner". He goes on to suggest that the first major Dem. player to jump in may be Congressman Loretta Sanchez, who's said that if a major Democrat like Sen. Feinstein doesn't run, "I'll have to." The pressure on Democrats to join the "race to replace" is building.
The California power elite first gave us an illegal tripling of the car tax -- now it looks like they're about to give us an unconstitutional budget:
The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from �fixing� the deficit with long-term bonds-unless the bonds are approved by a statewide vote of the people, Pacific Legal Foundation warned today. PLF�s Board of Trustees this week gave the organization authority to file a lawsuit against any new state budget that violates the constitution�s debt-limitation provisions, in particular the voter-approval requirements.According to news reports, the budget proposals of both parties include as much as $10.7 billion in special �deficit bonds� to be retired over five years or longer. However, Article XVI, section I of the state Constitution prohibits the state from entering into a �debt� of more than $300,000 unless voters give their OK in a statewide election.
�It�s time for a constitutional reality check,� said PLF attorney Harold Johnson. �The governor and key legislators are overlooking the electorate�s role in the process. Everyone-Democrat and Republican alike-is talking about deficit bonds, but no one is talking about scheduling a vote to let the people say yes or no to those bonds. But ignoring the constitutional requirements won�t make them disappear. If the final budget includes multi-year debt-financing, there must be a popular vote on the bonds-or the politicians are buying themselves a lawsuit.�
-- Pacific Legal Foundation Press Release
And why are they doing all this? In order to generate the immense pile of cash the legislature has committed to the rich and powerful special interests groups who essentially own the state legislature -- and the Governor.
And it was exactly this sort of situation the progressives of the last century had in mind when they reformed the state government with such measures as the recall.
Here is the SacBee article which exposes where Governor Davis and his supporters came up with the lie that the recall will cost taxpayers "$60 million" -- from a 3-page memo reporting polling which showed voter discomfort with the recall only when the cost of the election topped $60 million, twice the already artificially high official estimate of the Democrat Sec. of State. Davis was again spreading the "$60 million" lie this morning on the Today show, along with the false suggestion that 8 million people voted for him in the last election (8 million people voted for all candidates). (via John and Ken)
PrestoPundit FLASHBACK -- June 11, 2003 -- the day PrestoPundit began seriously blogging the Davis Recall:
CALIFORNIA BULLETIN:
"Our elected officials in Sacramento are facing a budget crisis unseen in this state since the Great Depression, and it was entirely avoidable .. Teachers are getting pink slips, cops are getting laid off and the taxpayers are facing an increase in taxes and California's future is in danger."
Arnold Schwarzenegger, last night before the Club for Growth in Los Angeles -- an event making the 25th anniversary of the Proposition 13 tax revolt.
Schwarzenegger at one point in the speech remarked that he'd forgotten the governor's name, but added, "I know that you will help me recall him."
More Schwarzenegger:
"There comes a point when we the people must demand more out of our elected officials than for them just showing up .. Howard Jarvis used to say it is time to show the politicians who is the boss. We are at such a point right now, ladies and gentlemen."
The two best Gray Davis recall web sites I've found is are these: RescueCalifornia.com and RecallGrayDavis.com
And who opposes the recall? -- Those who've pocketed the most cash: state prison guards, firefighters, and big business.
UPDATE: A new California polls show voters ready to lash out at politicians behind the state's budget meltdown -- and the constant drumbeat for ever higher tax increases.
Time magazine has a consultant saying this:
"The odds of the recall qualifying have increased to the point of near certainty."
The Washington Post has a long story on the Davis recall.
The LA Times has a feature story on Congressman Darrell Issa, who's leading the recall of Gov. Davis in California. Key fact: Issa has given $645,000 to the recall effort -- so far. Most of the article appears to be a bit of an early hit piece against Issa and his likely run against Davis should the recall succeed. All indications are that it will.
Meanwhile, Reuters leads with news that the Davis recall is moving ahead quickly. Key fact: recall organizers likely have 700,000 signatures already -- only 897,158 valid signatures are required. Organizers say that something like 1.2 million recall signatures should assure enough valid signers for recall success.
CALIFORNIA BULLETIN: Arnold Schwarzenegger backs Gov. Davis recall, calls for voter revolt. Tells audience he can't remember the governor's name, would like them to help him recall .. California's can join the recall at GrayDavisRecall.com
This makes sense to me:
Aides have said that [Schwarzenegger] was leaning hard against making a run because of his desire to spend more time with his four children who are aged five to 14.
(Reuters "Schwarzenegger to Terminate Governor Run" news story).
California Insider confirms this mornings CNN report:
Republican Party spokesman Rob Stutzman, speaking on Eric Hogue's radio show on KTKZ in Sacramento, says it's official: Arnold is out. "I had that confirmed late last night," Stutzman said.
Heads up for Instapundit readers -- you can find all of my California recall coverage collected here. And to the right you will find a few of the best links to sources on the California recall and the California budget.
LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger will not run for California's governor as part of the October vote on whether to recall incumbent Gov. Gray Davis, state Republican sources said Wednesday.Schwarzenegger is expected to back Richard Riordan, a former Los Angeles mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2002. Riordan said yesterday that he would not run if the star of the Terminator movies, who turned 56 on Wednesday, entered the race.
California Insider has a rundown of the latest race to replace news. Not much new on the Riordan for Governor front at this hour. CNN still hasn't posted anything on their story that Arnold Schwarzenegger has in fact reached a decision not to run for Governor, full stop, no hedges.
Now the dishonest folks supporting Davis are polluting the public conversation with false claims about a "billion dollar recall". It won't be too soon that power has been taken away from Davis and his creepy political bedmates.
CNN is reporting that Schwarzenegger's ticket selling "I'd love to be Governor" teasing of California voters is finally at an end. It's about time.
What is wrong with this picture?
There was no limit on donations in the 2002 gubernatorial election. But in the recall race, only Davis � as the target of the recall � can accept unlimited donations. Candidates to replace Davis are subject to a cap of $21,200 per donor. The donation limits favor wealthy candidates who are allowed to donate an unlimited amount to their own campaigns.
From the LA Times. Could the perversity of such restrictions on free speech rights be made any more obvious? Of course, the candidate most harmed by this assault on free speech is Tom McClintock. Folks can help even the playing field by sending a check to Tom via his web site.
I'll likely support Riordan if he enters the race, but it's just wrong that non-millionaires simply don't have a chance in any race for governor in the state of California.
The Mercury News has the latest on Riordan's race to replace plans. Among other things, Riordan wants to be sure Feinstein isn't jumping in before he decides whether or not to run. The Mercury News also has a recall news page. I've found the Merc News to be one of the better sources on recall news in the state.
Calblog takes out her crystal ball and comes up with the lowdown on Riordan, Schwarzenegger, and their joint no show at the starting gate in the race to replace.
Daniel Weintraub on the people of California vs. the ruling establishment. There's a real sense out there that the people of California need to reclaim ownership of their government, and this has sent the elite into a whining fit. Weintraub tells the ruling establishment to get over it -- this is a democracy, so enough already with the pissy whining. Read the piece and you'll get a sense of what the recall feels like on the California street.
California Insider has a Riordan - Schwarzenegger press roundup. All signs point to a Schwarzenegger endorsement of a Riordan for Governor campaign.
A good fact file and resource page on California's Budget Crisis.
Democratic State Senator Dean Florez is seriously considering a run for Governor, as quoted in the Mercury News.
Calblog casts her lot with McClintock:
I came to my decision today. McClintock is our best hope. He is focussed on the budget while everyone else is deciding the best time to announce whether they're running or not ...
Follow the link to read it all.
Retaining Gov. Davis will cost taxpayers money -- California Sate Constitution:
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALLSEC. 18. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and personally incurred.
(via John and Ken)
Peter Robinson at the corner has posted more California budget stats from Michael New of the CATO Institute:
I've found that if California had limited expenditure increases to the inflation rate plus population growth, then the state would have saved $58 billion since 1998. This could eliminate the $38 billion deficit and leave $20 billion for tax cuts. My calculations run as follows:Year Population Actual spending Limited Spending Savings plus inflation
1998 0.0% $52.9 billion $52.9 billion $0
1999 3.7% $57.8 bilion $54.9 billion $2.9 billion
2000 9.0% $66.5 billion $57.7 billion $8.8 billion
2001 13.9% $78.1 billion $60.3 billion $17.8 billion
2002 17.6% $76.8 billion $62.2 billion $14.6 billion
2003 21.5% $7.81 billion $64.4 billion $13.8 billion
Total savings: $57.9 billion
ScrappleFace has the scope -- California citizens pitching in to save the state:
Citizens Come to Aid of States in Budget Crises (2003-07-28) -- Donations have begun to pour in from Americans shocked and concerned about budget crises in dozens of state governments ..."We appreciate the contributions," said one unnamed state treasurer, "but what really gets me are the emotional notes that come with them. One factory worker said he was saving up money to buy a computer for his children, but he believes the state needs the money more. He sent $800."
As the New York Times story indicated, the hardest hit states are those with progressive tax schemes which apply higher rates to people in upper income brackets.
A California farmer sent a $75 donation, and wrote: "I know that the wealthy helped state budgets double during the Internet bubble, but their investments have tanked. Now, it's time for all good men to come to the aid of their state government."
NY Times will he or won't he watch:
Arnold Schwarzenegger is "leaning strongly against" entering the race for governor of California and will announce his decision by the end of the week, a senior adviser said today ...The actor met with his political advisers this morning and told them that he was concerned about the effect the race would have on his school-age children, one adviser said. Mr. Schwarzenegger told his aides that his wife, Maria Shriver, a television reporter and niece of President John F. Kennedy, had concerns about a possible candidacy because of the loss of privacy and potential physical threat it might entail.
Note the bogus "$60 million" recall cost number tossed out at the end of the article by a Davis campaign hack. This is made up number, not the actual estimated cost of the recall, which will cost in the $30 - $35 million according to the Democrat State Sec. of State. Does the NY Times have a fact checker or is it just standard NY Times practice publishing inaccurate Democratic party talking points without remark? Davis himself is spreading around the "$60 million" number. And where did the number come from? It's the number which Davis polsters found voters felt uncomfortable with, when the actual Sec. of State's numbers didn't bother them. Hence the peddling of the fabricated "$60 million" number, which you will hear again and again in future days.
The California state general fund budget has increased by almost a half in six years. Here is quick breakdown of some of the outrageous numbers behind the most irresponsible government in the nation (excluding the one in Washington). The numbers come from the author of this CATO briefing paper on California's fiscal condition.
UPDATE: I had the percentages wrong in the above, so I've corrected them. How did I screw up? Well, I'm just a beginner at trying to make sense of the California taxing and spending accounts, and figuring out an IRS form is childs play compared to what the bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento have constructed. An important distinction to recognize is that the all funds budget is in the $100 billion plus range, while the general fund budget is somewhere in the $70 - $80 billion range. If you forget this little fact, your math can go haywire.
SacBee reporter Daniel Weintraub begins regular appearances on the Hugh Hewitt show today. I caught the California Insider on The BeltwayBoys last night, and he's as good in person as he is in print. Different format, same solid reporting and analysis.What everyone wants to know is the background story on Schwarzenegger's choice not to run. Was it all a tease, or was it a late decision made on the recommendation of his wife? We'll see, and my guess is that the best source on the story will be Weintraub.
Dick Riordan will be the next Governor of California. You heard it here first.
There is a deep sense across the state of California that Davis's use of illegitimate methods cost Riordan the Governorship just a year ago. The election of Riordan to the Governor's office will have a sense of a world being made right.
And somebody tell Bill Simon to go jump in a lake.
Schwarzenegger is OUT. Riordan set to run. It's no surprise who has the scoop.
So my gut instinct what right. Schwarzenegger was using the state of California for his own personal profit -- and abusing such good people as Richard Riordan, who have something serious to contribute to the state. The rich and famous invariably get away with such stuff with little or no downside or accountability. Wish this wasn't true.
Was Calblog right all along? We'll see.
The national chattering class continues to take notice that something is happening in California. As usual, most aren't all that interested in substance. Instead, most national pundits see the race to replace as a target rich environment for entertainment stories. That seems to be Howard Kurtz's angle, and certainly that is what you'd expect from such empty vessels as the NY Times' pathetic Maureen Dowd -- and that's what we got. The "campaign" of a computer programmer in the Bay area -- who's selling underwear with her name on it -- is getting a lot of national press coverage. Here is her blog. Even Instapundit has jumped on the Georgy for Governor -- and underwear salesman -- bandwagon.
The SacBee's Laura Mecoy -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, he's no Ronald Reagan. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger's supporters point to former President Reagan as evidence that a charismatic actor can leap from the silver screen to the state Capitol.But Reagan toiled in Republican trenches for almost 15 years before he won the 1966 California gubernatorial campaign.
Schwarzenegger campaigned for the first President Bush and chaired the former president's physical fitness council.
But he has only voted in three of the last eight statewide elections, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office.
He voted in last year's primary and general elections as well as the November 1998 gubernatorial election. County voting records only date back to 1996.
Reagan not only voted but he never appeared nude, as Schwarzenegger has in his three "Terminator" movies and in photographs.
The former president did appear in Westerns, but the depiction of violence wasn't as graphic as it is today.
Reagan occasionally stumbled in his public statements. But he was never quoted with the type of impolitic remarks that Schwarzenegger has uttered.
In recent interviews, for instance, the action star used vulgar terms when referring to a woman's physical attributes and gleefully speculated about burying a woman's face in a toilet bowl during a movie fight scene.
"That kind of language is at the lowest level," said Bob Mulholland, California Democratic Party campaign adviser.
He's already suggesting Schwarzenegger would require female state workers to wear dresses because the actor once said he won't let his mother and wife wear pants when they're in public with him.
"Arnold is a movie star, and movie stars do colorful things," his consultant, Gorton, said. "But look, the experience we already have tells us that the button-down guys got us to where we are today."
Junk science, a corrupt legal system and Erin Brockovich.
California Insider responds to Dowd and Panetta on the California recall. Well said, I'd say.
Here is the Newsweek cover story on California and the Davis recall. The piece includes some choice Dan Walters quotes on Gray Davis.
FORTUNE magazine weighs in on the worst state in the union to do business:
The state government under embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis is turning so stridently antibusiness that it threatens to inflict permanent structural damage. Since 2002 the left-leaning legislature has enacted or expanded half-a-dozen laws dealing with burdensome regulations like family leave and overtime pay. Some corporate leaders think California is becoming Sweden-on-the-Pacific. "I've never seen anything like this is 35 years," says Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, the big mortgage company based near Los Angeles. "The state is punishing business, yet it's somehow convinced that business will not leave."Wrong: Companies�and jobs�are departing in droves. The state has lost 289,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. "The jobs that have to stay here are ones that involve direct contact with customers," says Liam McGee, head of Bank of America in California. "The mobile jobs�in systems development, manufacturing, call centers�are moving to other states." Fidelity National, the nation's biggest title-insurance company, is shifting its headquarters from Santa Barbara to Jacksonville. Scores of the small businesses that form the backbone of California's economy are moving either jobs or headquarters out of state. Buck Knives is going to Idaho, and Coast Converters, a bagmaking company, to Las Vegas. Taylor-Dunn, a manufacturer of cartlike vehicles for airports, is expanding in Ohio and Missouri. Though Countrywide is growing rapidly, Mozilo is shrinking operations in California and shifting all expansion to low-cost states like Texas. By his estimate, the flood of new legislation will increase Countrywide's cost per worker by $4,000 to $5,000 a year.
Tyler Cowen has some nominations for the Nobel Prize in Economics:
Harold Demsetz - deserving in my view. He started contestable markets and put empirical teeth into property rights theory, industrial organization, and some law and economics. But I don't expect him to get it, somehow his reputation never became highbrow enough. His works revels in its own simplicity (which I don't mind at all).Israel Kirzner - leader of the Austrian school but very low profile within the economics profession. Hard to see where all the votes would come from.
William Baumol - A very smart guy. No one would object if he got it. But Demsetz (among others) beat him to the key point on contestable markets, and his work on cultural economics doesn't have enough currency. What else should he get it for? I'll bet no.
Kirzner is my own choice -- a deserved one.
A little know fact -- Baumol's mathematical analysis of some models inspired by Hayek's work in the theory of capital and interest played an important role in Hayek's turn away from macroeconomics. Hayek simply had too much on his plate, and no time to go down the road of specialized mathematical analysis. Whether the Baumol's mathematical specialization road has been an intellectually productive one is an open question. Or maybe not. At this point, a respectable argument could be made that as an explanatory endevour the project has been a massive failure.
Few recall this, but Baumol was important perhaps above all for his textbook, which emphasized advanced mathematical technique.
Here is my pick for the be-all and end-all of race to replace speculation possibilities -- Jerry Brown. If you didn't know, Governor Jerry Brown's chief of staff was a fellow named Gray Davis. "Sources say" Governor Moonbeam is considering entering the race. You've got to love California. (via LA Observed)
ScrappleFace, eat your heart out!
The call was placed to the San Bruno home of William Pratt, one of California's new candidates for governor.His mother answered.
"Could you hold on a minute?" the 18-year-old Pratt asked a reporter as he covered the receiver to shoo away his mother. "Mom, stop waving that mail in my face. I'm trying to do an interview."
The floodgates of the democratic republic opened wide Friday as Pratt and dozens of other Californians headed to their county registrars to start the process of getting on the Oct. 7 ballot to be the next governor.
They're giddy at the relative ease of it all -- especially Pratt, who lost six elections for student congress at St. Francis High School in Mountain View.
-- actual news out of San Franscisco
(thanks to PatheticEarthlings)
Calblog comes out with an endorsement for Governor in the race to replace. She also has links to the C-SPAN broadcast of Saturday's rally to recall in Sacramento.
Could the "will he or won't he" game be a Schwarzenegger campaign ploy? The hype is good for Arnold either direction he is playing the game.
How the recall happened -- a county by country graphic, provided by Bound in a Nutshell. Unbelievably, 40 percent of those in Kern county who voted in 2002 signed the recall petition. Anybody know what Gray Davis did to Kern country?
Gray Davis has come out in support of issuing valid California driver's licences to aliens who reside in the country illegally. Davis made the announcement while campaigning in spanish speaking regions of Los Angeles. Prior to the recall, Davis would not support a bill extending driver's licences to non-citizens who live in California in violation of the laws of the United States. Polls show that Davis is doing poorly among Hispanics on the question of whether or not he should keep his job.
The LA Times continues to have serious problems in its newsroom -- this time Jill Stewart has the details on how the Times spiked poll data which undercuts the spin coming out of the Davis campaign. Sadly, we've got a party press at most major press outlets -- a return to the kind of press seen during the age of the railroad trusts. With one big difference. Today the press lies about it's role, while back in the days of old no one pretended to be anything other than party hacks.
Jill Stewart will be broadcasting live from the Recall Gray Davis Rally at the State Capital between 10 am and 2 pm Saturday on KFI 640. Listen to it here.
Remember the name. Proposition 54. This could be bigger than the race to replace.
The California recall election will be held Oct. 7. Candidates for Governor must announce by Aug. 9. Arnold can continue selling movie tickets on election speculation for another two weeks.
The catastrophe of incredibly irresponsible government continues to plague the state, with Standard & Poor's dropping the states bond rating to BBB -- near junk bond status and by far the lowest of any state. The upshot? The treasurers office guestimates that the rating downgrade will cost the state around $1 billion over a 30 year period.
It can't be to soon before we get ourselves a new governor.
Schwarzenegger: California can wait -- I have a movie to promote.
John Fund has been told by "Schwarzenegger's political advisors" (that would be George Gorton) that they believe that Schwarzenegger will be running for governor of California. Fund offers a fact filled analysis of Schwarzenegger's politics and the possible strategies of a Schwarzenegger candidacy.
Britain's The Guardian does a "Schwarzenegger wants to be Governor" piece. Money quote:
One small, unanswered question remains: how exactly will Governor Schwarzenegger deal with California's terrifying $38bn deficit? Trust him; he's a superhero.
California Insider has some hot California recall stories this morning.
The Davis campaign is set to go with personal attacks on Schwarzenegger. Quotable:
The [Democract] party's attack machine is already in second gear. Democrats unearthed a 1998 video that shows some Issa aides at a gun show where Nazi memorabilia is visible in the background. And they are interested in a 2001 Premiere magazine article depicting Schwarzenegger as a man who gropes women. Schwarzenegger did not sue. As Bob Mulholland, a state Democratic operative, says now: "We have a copying machine."
Fred Barnes on the shaking and quaking caused by the California recall. (via California Insider)
Calblog is sifting through the Schwarzenegger archives and finding lots of interesing things.
Jill Stewart follows the fat cat anti-recall money -- and draws some obvious conclusions.
Will Schwarzenegger show up? Recall organizers plan a massive recall rally at the state capital, July 26.
Well, maybe it's 1,600,000 recall signatures. And a graphic look at the numbers, as of July 8.
Rescuing the substance of philosophy from the dumbing down of the ahistorical philosophers.
Davis recall organizers will anounce there final count on Monday, California Insider reports. It looks like they've mailed in 1,400,000 signatures already, with more on the way. All reports have it that the validity rate of the signatures is running unusually high. There seems to be nothing in the way of having an election called by July 23 -- if everybody follows the law and does their job.
A long piece on Schwarzenegger in the Financial Times by an Arnold biographer. Money quote:
In the US, he took business classes at UCLA and won a business degree by correspondence course from the University of Wisconsin. His economic views were defined early: "I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory." (Not a line you expect to hear from Conan the Barbarian. Or then again...) In 1980, the year he became an American citizen, he bombarded friends with tapes of Milton Friedman's television series Free to Choose. Arnold himself felt free to speculate in property and real estate with bewildering success, or beginner's luck, during the 1970s.
Congressman & candidate for Governor Darrell Issa guest hosts the John & Ken show in Los Angeles today between 3 and 6 p.m. You can listen live here.
Dan Walters has the latest out of the legislature on the lawsuit abuse bill. And things are as ugly as ever. In a related matter, the lawyers of the Trevor Law Group have effectively disbarred themselves, avoiding formal disbarment by the California state bar. How do you say weazel in lawyer speak?
I happened to catch Schwarzenegger on one of those entertainment news shows tonight -- and I was reminded again just how likable the guy is, and just how much positive energy the guy brings with him. If he runs a script writer couldn't have come up with a more exaggerated pairing of opposites than Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis. Compared to the contrast of personalities between Davis and Schwarzenegger, Danny DeVito is Arnold's lost twin.
In a FOX News appearance Susan Estrich was out spreading the story that Darrel Issa was convicted of stealing cars decades ago. When corrected off camera Estrich said that this is what she had been told by Davis staffers. Let's hope there was a miscommunication there somewhere.
California Insider has the scoop again -- and some smart analysis:
.. Ransom�s post is based on a slightly ambiguous report at YahooNews.com in which George Gorton, Arnold�s chief political adviser, is quoted saying the actor won�t make a decision until after T3 has opened in all foreign markets. I just talked to Gorton and he assures me that nothing has changed. Arnold, he says, might ultimately decide not to run, but he will certainly make a deliberate decision before the filing deadline, whenever it is. �He is going to make a decision in a timely fashion,� Gorton says. He expressed frustration at being asked to answer this question 15 times a day and noted that he might have been guilty of a slight change of wording this time that fed the latest speculation. "I'll have to remember to keep answering exactly the same way every time," he said.Gorton didn�t say this, but one thing to keep in mind is that Arnold won�t want to announce until the election date is set. If he were to make the decision and then see the election postponed by lawsuits, he�d be out there exposed as a candidate but without a race to really run in. And the infamous Davis hit machine would train its sights on him.
California can sit and wait -- there are movie tickets to sell! Schwarzenegger pushes back his decision date on the race of Governor until August 15 -- after T3 has opened world wide. Memo to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Georg Gorton -- this may come 2 weeks after the window for filing has closed, which may be as early as July 25. Quotable:
The Austrian-born star of the "Terminator" will not announce whether he will challenge the cash-strapped US state's embattled Governor Gray Davis for the job until his latest movie has opened all over the world, an aide said. "Arnold is concentrating on his movie work right now and won't make any decision on whether to run until "Terminator 3" has opened in all foreign markets," said his political advisor George Gorton. "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines" is due to make its remaining overseas debuts between July 20 and August 15.
My nagging suspicion is that Schwarzenegger is doing a Donald Trump (or a Colin Powell) -- teasing folks with the prospect of an electorial run for the purpose of selling a product, but with no real intention of running for office. I rather hope I'm proved wrong. But clearly Schwarzenegger intends to make many more movies (he's recently said so), and just as clearly, there's lots more fun and money in movie making than in solving the problems of California.
Calblog has a hot race for Governor scoop. It looks like Sen. Tom McClintock is running. He's a smart, sensible and hard working man .. and he's made the case for recall better than anyone. I wish there was a place for such good people in a state as messed up as California -- but I doubt it.
And don't miss Sean's insightful remarks in Calblog's comments section.
State GOP promises to get out the Davis recall vote. (via PatheticEarthlings). Quotable:
[California] can't afford three more years of this person.
-- State GOP chair Duf Sundheim.
And guess what, the recall has been good for the GOP:
[Sundheim] said anecdotal evidence from five of the state's 58 counties shows that 20 percent of those registering to vote as Republicans in June were changing over from the Democratic Party. He also said that in San Bernardino County, 6,300 people registered as Republican, an unusually high number for June in a nonpresidential election year.
Democratic party campaign chief Bob Mulholland remains adamant that no Democrat will appear on the ballot for governor: "There won't be any. They've all made it very clear." More good news for Schwarzenegger -- or Riordan.
Will Schwarzenegger jump in or out of the race for Governor? Schwarzenegger political consultant George Gorton shares this thought -- once an election date is set .. Arnold is in. Quotable:
Schwarzenegger adviser George Gorton said Wednesday he thinks the actor will decide to run and make a formal announcement after an election date is set.
The recall signature count calendar -- upshot? The recall should be certified by July 23 and the election will be be held within the following 60 to 80 days, on a date to be specified by the lieutenant governor. All bets are off if the courts decide to overrule the constitution and do whatever they want.
LA drive-time radio talk hosts John & Ken and their listeners are hammering California Sec. of State Kevin Shelley over his efforts to illegally delay the count of the recall signatures. My guess is that Shelly will [quietly] back down on this one.
Here's another unsolved California problem -- and another reason Davis will get the boot.
I'd missed this Dan Walters line quoted in Fund:
The publicity helps [Schwarzenegger] and some say the Terminator plot is tailor-made for his campaign pitch: it's about a good guy who saves the world from a robot.
An indecisive Arnold Schwarzenegger may drag out his ticket selling tease into August. Money quote:
[Schwarzenegger consultant George] Gorton said he expects Schwarzenegger to make a decision later this month or in early August ..
If Schwarzenegger runs and wins under Gorton's direction, the victory will also be one for the state's last Republican governor -- Pete Wilson:
Team Wilson - Gorton, former chief of staff Bob White, former communications director Sean Walsh and media consultant Don Sipple - are set to become Team Arnold.
If Schwarzenegger truly wants the job, Darrell Issa is ready and waiting for the debate to begin. Quotable.
I'm afraid to armwrestle him," Issa said. "I'm not afraid to enter into the realm of ideas with him.
Political junkies have got to hope that Arnold jumps in. Schwarzenegger in debate would be too rich.
Schwarzenegger failed to help out with the recall early on, and that failure didn't win him any friends. Quotable.
But some Republicans are openly nonplused by a potential Schwarzenegger candidacy. "I will be blunt: If Arnold wanted to run for governor through the recall, Arnold should have helped the recall," said Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes, an early supporter of the recall. "We shopped the idea of the recall to a variety of people, including Schwarzenegger's representatives, and they chose not to get involved," said Haynes. "The person who chose to get involved and to make this recall go...was [Rep.] Darrell Issa.
Nasty, brutal and short -- Claremont-McKenna Professor John Pitney on the upcoming recall election. He also adds this:
The interesting thing will be to see if the campaign backfires on Davis. He will need to attack his opponents and raise lots of money, which will just remind Californians of why they hate him so much.
The article comes with a typical NY Times editorial-come-headline -- instead of promising to help restore sanity to a state capital out of control, the headline writer assures us that the recall will only create more "chaos". You don't suppose they've taken sides at the national news desk, do you?
Jay Leno --
They're now saying if Terminator 3 reaches $200 million at the box office, Arnold Schwarzenegger will not run for governor .. And so far, Gray Davis has seen it 380 times.
Alan Reynolds does some math on state taxing and spending. Worth quoting:
From 1991 through 2001, state taxes rose by 4.2 percent a year in real, inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Tax Foundation. Real incomes of taxpayers rose more slowly, by 3.5 percent a year. In California, real incomes grew by only 3.2 percent a year, yet tax receipts grew by 5.4 percent a year. This was an unsustainable trend: State taxes could not possibly keep rising faster than taxpayers' incomes indefinitely, or taxpayers' after-tax incomes would fall continually until there was nothing left.From 1999 to 2001, many states and cities made lavish spending plans on the basis of a temporary revenue windfall from stock options and capital gains. Spending by state and local governments rose 4 percent in 1996, 4.4 percent in 1997, 5.4 percent in 1998, 7 percent in 1999, 8.2 percent in 2000 and 8.1 percent in 2001. That, too, was an unsustainable trend: State and local spending could not keep rising by 8 percent a year because at that rate it would double every nine years and eventually account for 100 percent of GDP.
There's lots more on California and it's utterly unsustainable spend and tax policies.
A tip for new bloggers. Don't use Google as a spell checker.
Daniel Weintraub has a must read on what a Schwartzenegger run for Governor might look like. There's a lot worth quoting, put I'll take this:
Today, when most people hear his name, they think movie star. That�s enough to create the initial excitement. But in a campaign, that buzz would be only the beginning. Voters would first be reminded of his sponsorship of last year�s successful Proposition 49, which boosted funding for after-school programs for kids. Then they�d hear about his private work for after-school programs that preceded the initiative. From there it would be a natural segue to his broader commitment to inner city youth through his charitable work. And finally would come information about his growing business empire. He might even, God forbid, enunciate a vision for the future of the state. All of this would have the effect of getting people to stop and say, oh, he�s more than a movie star. He�s a man of some depth and substance and guts ..
Read the rest, as they say. I won't give away Weintraub's punchline.
Dan Walters has his picks for the Governor's race. Worth quoting:
Riordan reportedly is telling political insiders that if he does run, it will be with the declared intention of serving just the three years remaining in Davis' term, and not running for re-election in 2006.
The Reason Institute has a website dedicated to the California budget crisis. (via Virginia Postrel)
Is it 1.4 million signatures or is it 1.5 million, as Sal Russo of recallgraydavis.com has it (on Fox News last night)? Whatever. It's time to have a vote. This must be a bit like what it feels to be British when the Prime Minister has lost a vote of no confidence, and a new election has been called. I'll admit I'm getting a some of that democracy joes you get just after you've voted.
It's now time to elect a new state Governor. My own choice is Dick Riordan. The state is in terribly serious trouble and Riordon has shown in the past that he can tackle tough problems, and improve things for the better, as he did with Los Angeles. Riordan is a talented and serious man. He works well with people. And most importantly, he's both fiscally responsible and ethical in a way that few in Sacramento understand anymore. He's a leader, and he'll lead the folks in Sacramento in the direction they must go -- or this rebellion will not be over.
Will Riordan run? Well, I think everyone is waiting to see what Schwartzenegger will do. Schwartzenegger brings a lot to the table -- including a terrific can-do spirit -- but I'm not sure they're enough of the right things for a state with such deep and serious problems. Is Schwartzenegger himself serious enough and dedicated enough to tackle these problems? It's an open question -- and an important one for folks who pay taxes and make use of the government. He certainly lacks many of the skills and most all of the experience which Riordan has in spades. Whatever Schwartzenegger plans to do, he needs to do it now. The waiting game tease -- for whatever personal reasons -- is not one that the state can long afford. Whether its in or out, Schwartzenegger needs to put his cards on the table. Otherwise, he's really f-ing with a state which can't afford to be f-ed with -- tens of billions of dollars are currently on the line with the state's bond ratings -- and he will risk destroying a tremendous amount of good will built up with the people of California. This is especially true if it becomes clear that Schwarzenegger has simply been selling T3 tickets with a phony "I'd love to be Governor" tease while California burns.
Schwarzenegger can lead the state -- and lead it in the right direction -- if he applies the sort of dedication, seriousness, and drive he applied to becoming a body building champion, actor, and good citizen. But the stakes are higher here -- and it's not just about Arnold anymore. Is he up to it? We'll see -- but the jury is out.
The NY Times has the completion of the California recall story . Quotable:
"It's a done deal," said Jonathan Wilcox, a spokesman for United States Representative Darrell Issa ..
Compare PrestoPundit yesterday: "The Recall -- it's a done deal."
Coincidence? You decide!
"businesses manipulate government for their own benefit" -- hmmm. Was Bruce Bartlett writing about LA Chamber of Commerce? The Chamber has come out in favor of Davis and against the recall.
I imagine their thinking goes something like this: Gray Davis is a really lousy governor, but he's our (the Chamber's bought and paid for) really lousy governor. We can't afford to buy and pay for him a third time -- the problems of the state aren't important enough to be worth that.
Worth quoting from the Chamber press release:
That is not to say that we agree with all that Gov. Davis has done during his five years in office. We have our policy differences with him in many areas. From workers' compensation to over regulation, from labor laws to energy, from a penchant for fund raising to a lack of leadership, Gov. Davis could have done a better job for our state.
(link via California Insider).
If Schwarzenegger doesn't run, here's a good reason why:
One of the guiding objectives of his life is to have fun. "The first 10 times I saw Arnold, he told me to relax and lighten up," Gorton says. "This is someone who loves to have a good time." It's not clear why anyone's idea of a good time would include a $38 billion budget deficit, a contentious legislature and a state credit rating that's plummeting toward junk-bond status ..
Just what I was thinking ..
[Democracts might] try to preempt a Schwarzenegger candidacy and perhaps catch both him and Riordan napping. Here's how: By Wednesday, July 23, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley might well have all the verified counts he needs from the counties to certify the recall as qualified for the ballot. The moment he does so, the clock begins ticking on the election, which must be held between 60 and 80 days from that date. Suppose Shelley certifies it on July 24, and Lt. Gov. Bustamante then immediately sets the election for 61 days later, on Tuesday, Sept. 23. The filing period for candidates, set by law, closes 59 days before the election. That means candidates would have just two days to decide whether to put their names on the ballot and process the paperwork to do so ..
California Insider has the scoop -- again.
Calblog has some recall predictions. She's been right before.
"We're done"
The Contra Costa Times covers the completion of the drive to recall the Governor of California.
"Davis' goose is cooked"
-- Tony Andrade of the Davis Recall Committee in an AFP story titled "They Have the Signatures".
Transcript -- are petition mechanisms a good thing or a bad thing for Democracy? Dane Waters, president of Initiative and Referendum Institute, on Fox's The Big Show.
Priorities & Frivolities takes a look at the Schwarzenegger playbook -- Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder, and comes away with a few strategic moves on the way to the Governor's office -- if Arnold wants it.
Tax hero -- and recall mastermind -- Ted Costa profiled.
Recall forces claim 1,260,930 signatures collected, taking them beyond their stated goal of 1,233,572 signers by July 12 -- and giving them a huge cushion over the required 897,158 signatures for recall. The race to replace is on.
Will the Davis anti-recall campaign be a replay of the race and fear charged San Fernando anti-secession campaign? Reporter Jill Stewart ran into political hack Kam Kuwata -- who helped run that campaign -- as he left a Davis meeting, and here is her conclusion.
The Recall -- it's a done deal. Daniel Weintraub, the California Insider, has the internet scoop. Snippet:
The Davis Recall campaign reports that signature gathering is complete. �We are pulling everyone out of the field this afternoon,� David Gilliard, the consultant to the Rescue California committee, tells me. �The phone calls are going out, about 1,200 of them. They are being told to stop and turn in what they�ve got.� ... Gilliard says Rescue California, the committee funded by Rep. Darrell Issa, will submit a total of 1.2 million signatures. The volunteer-based committees expect to have about 200,000 more, for a total of nearly 1.4 million.
The office of Sec. of State Kevin Shelley has put together a FAQ on the recall. (via Calblog).
Bound in a Nutshell has a regional analysis of support for the recall, as the numbers pile up in the Sec. of State's office. Also provided -- a handy county-by-county chart of the recall signature numbers. Notable -- nearly 20% of Kern county 2002 voters have signed the recall petition.
First you get the dirt published in places like the SF Chronicle -- then you run smear ads on the radio like this. It's the Davis way, and it's another reason Gray Davis will be out on the street by mid-November.
The other day I was interviewed on the radio along with Ted Costa, the man who started the campaign to recall Gov. Gray Davis. Costa, who is chief executive of the anti-tax group Peoples Advocate, was asked what he has against the governor."We're upset with government in general," Costa replied. "Sure, we picked him out. He's the CEO of this operation. But government in California has become utterly corrupt. Every bill that seems to go through the Legislature, it's because money was given to the political arena. We want that mess cleaned up.
"We are starting out with him," Costa said. "And this is a continuous thing that will go on. It will not stop once he's thrown out of office."
As far as I know, this was the first time Costa had so clearly stated his desire for a California political revolt. He and his allies are aiming for the head. But it's the whole body they're after.
And that, I think, is what really has the elites in this state panicked. They have no love for Gray Davis. But they fear that the recall could be the start of something over which they have little control.
But there is LOTS more of serious interest. Well, damn it, let me quote some more of it:
California, a place famous for direct democracy through the ballot initiative, our candidate elections have suffered from a distinct lack of voter engagement.The statewide races are dominated by television commercials, with little chance for real people to see, touch and question the candidates. Debates are few and far between, and real debates are almost unheard of. Advances in political technology have allowed the campaigns to carve the voters up into little slices and then bombard them with messages meant to move them on narrow issues. Last year's campaign for governor, for example, included barely a word of serious discussion about the two problems that have brought the state to its knees: the energy crisis and the fiscal meltdown.
The Legislature, meanwhile, has engaged in a bipartisan scam to dampen political competition, first by limiting campaign contributions, which helps incumbents, and then by redrawing district boundaries in a way that determines the partisan outcome of almost all the races in advance. The voter registration of the districts is so lopsided that the victor in the party primary is almost always guaranteed to win the general election.
The result is a political class horribly disconnected from the rest of California.
Statewide leaders live in a cocoon where interest group money and political strategists are the only things that really matter. And legislators either don't have to worry about reelection at all or fear only the small chance that they will be outflanked by a candidate of their own party in the primary. Term limits, which were supposed to make the Legislature more in touch with the people, haven't helped, because a third or so of the members aren't running for reelection and the rest are concerned only about finding their next job and the money to win it.
It's little wonder that we have a revolt on our hands. Davis allies have tried to portray the campaign as a right-wing coup, and of course its roots are in the conservative Republican community. But the unrest goes well beyond that core group, extending to many Democrats and the state's growing number of independents. Even Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate for governor last year, has said he will run again if the recall qualifies for the ballot.
The making of a recall. Money quote:
A few weeks after the election, Davis raised the stakes on the budget debacle. Estimates of the budget gap had zoomed past the $20 billion mark and were rising quickly to $35 billion. Democratic and Republican legislators, mired in gridlock, floated the idea of a ballot measure to give voters the choice of higher taxes or deep spending cuts. [Ted] Costa, director of People's Advocate, a tax watchdog group, saw Davis' imprint and considered it a political bailout, he said. "I figured, if the dirty bastards are going to do that, (Davis) ought to be on the ballot with them," said Costa, describing one of the first baby steps into recall talk.
And this:
California's recall provision, approved by voters in 1911, does not specify particular reasons why an official may be recalled. "Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable," it says."I look at the recall as a tool that's open to the people," said Costa. "It's part of our social compact in California. It's not negotiable."
Costa polled the members of his anti-tax group. The result: near unanimous support for a Davis recall effort.
He began planning.
There is lots more in this piece of very good reporting. Why isn't there more of this sort of thing in the California press? The major papers spend a good deal of their limited time sifting through dirt-ball "scandal" stories pushed by the Davis camp, but its a rare thing for one of them to tell us this BIG story of the making of the recall -- which IS news and which IS happening and which IS making history. If journalism is history in a hurry, the Contra Costa Times has written some history.
Over the top! The recall folks are claiming 1,000,310 recall signatures submitted and 1,184,930 recall signatures received as of July 4, 2003 -- with 18,571 more "in the pipeline". If these numbers are valid, the drive to recall the governor of California has succeeded. And there is still another week of signature collecting yet to go within the timeframe deadline for a November election.
It's not only recall signatures which are rolling in, it's also cash.
At Rescue California headquarters .. a dozen volunteers busily opened and copied stacks of thick envelopes containing new petitions. Mingled with the petitions were personal checks � the group has raised more than $500,000 from individual donations averaging $29 ..
Here is Sunday's Judy Woodruff interview with Gray Davis. Worth a laugh:
And I'm convinced when people know that this is not a free ride, this special election that the proponents want will cost taxpayers $30 million -- this money is not budgeted.
Laughing out loud! The governor has programs costing $80 million dollars a day which are not budgeted -- and this is not a free ride either -- it's what's given us a $38 billion dollar deficit and train wreck of a bond rating
.
Oh, and there's more.
There is a vote today in Sacramento that will kick 110 kids out of kindergarten if the Republican budget is adopted.
Cut any bit of the 40% increase in state spending over the past four years and Gray Davis will have to kill this puppy!
The drive to recall him is nearly unprecedented, but Gov. Gray Davis has turned to a familiar formula to fight it. Just as he did when he became governor in 1998 and won re-election last year, the Democrat is seeking to shift the focus from himself and onto his Republican opponent, portraying him as too conservative for California and unfit to lead ...
The AP has the low-down on Davis's low-road politics.
TIME notices that there is some news happening in California -- and leads with the "Issa is a car thief .. or maybe not" story the San Francisco Chronicle has been running with. Pathetic. But they do come up with this bit of juice:
former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan tells TIME that he and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, both moderates, have talked about running against Davis.
Will Schwarzenegger be Governator? The Mercury News does a long piece on the prospect. (via Calblog) Big question -- can Arnold take it:
Two years ago, Premiere magazine ran an unflattering profile that accused Schwarzenegger of groping three women, cheating on his wife and belittling crew members on his movie sets. Schwarzenegger dismissed the piece as trash, but it became Exhibit A for Garry South, the governor's chief political strategist, who faxed the article to scores of reporters with a snide note about the actor. The faxes sparked angry threats from Schwarzenegger's attorney, but South said the actor can expect much worse if he runs.
Pathetic Earthlings reads the tea-leaves of the LA Times poll. Quotable:
If Feinstein gets in the game, this game is over. We Republicans would do best just to toss our purple and green properties and loose cash into the pot and pretend we hear our Mother calling.
Has Schwarzenegger's whole movie career been a stealth political campaign for Governor? Quotable:
I think it's safe to say that if Arnold were to be elected governor, he would be the first holder of high office in the history of the Republic whose bare buttocks have been seen by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Schwarzenegger and T3 are are runnaway winners at the box office.
Mark Steyn on Gray Davis and California. (via Instapundit). Worth quoting:
.. there's plenty of statistical evidence to suggest that if you sliced off California and floated it out into the Pacific there'd be no "Bush recession" at all. Shorn of LaLaLand, in May America would actually have seen a net gain in employment - an extra 4,500 jobs - but then the monthly figures from California came in - another 21,500 layoffs -and drove the national figure down again.
California Insider on the recall:
.. another way of looking at it is that elections are like job interviews. They are the people�s way of hiring our public servants. If an employer screws up and hires the wrong person, he doesn�t simply allow that person to continue to do damage to his company or organization. He removes him. In this case Davis was given a four-year contract as chief executive, subject to the pleasure of his employers�the people of California. Now we realize that the state�s problems are worse than we knew and Davis isn�t looking like he is up to the job. We�re scouting the possibilities to see if someone better might be available. This does not seem to be such a terrible thing.
Well said. Daniel Weinbraub was responding to a silly pieces by Jonah Goldberg. Warning: according to Jonah's alternative universe logic, once you begin reading his article you're required to read the whole thing -- every bit -- even after you've realize just how stupid the argument. Democracy and republicanism demand it. Really. Somehow. I'd don't know how. But trust me. I said so.
The bottom line is that Davis flat out lied to the voters of California during the election of 2002 -- hiding the true numbers on the seriousness of his gross fiscal mismanagement of the state. For Californians this is a deadly serious situation -- jobs and vital programs are on the line -- and the Governor has completely lost the trust of the people. The recall is perfectly within the bounds and purposes of the republican and democratic constitution of the state of California.
All of this seems to be simply humor foddor to Goldberg -- and like a joke or a jokester we shouldn't take Goldberg or his argument very seriously. And I'm sure that's the way he'd want it.
Quiz for Goldberg -- apply your requirements for democracy and republicanism to Canada, Britain, Italy and Australia. See how silly you are? (And I know all about the Queen).
Is Arnold Schwarzenegger doing a Colin Powell, or a Donald Trump -- using election speculation hype to sell a product? Well, if he is, it's working -- the Governor Schwarzenegger story is world-wide news, helping to sell the Schwarzenegger name -- and T3 tickets -- around the globe.
The Union-Tribune does a feature story on the Davis recall. Worth quoting:
the dump-Davis movement has become a populist prairie fire unseen since the Proposition 13 tax revolt of 1978.
And this:
"We don't know whether [Arnold Schwarzenegger] is going to run or not, but I'm pretty sure that he is," said [Schwarzenegger] political adviser George Gorton. "He seems to be pretty interested in it and pretty excited about it."There is much speculation that Schwarzenegger's career path may be determined by the box office receipts from "Terminator 3."
"Ask me again after the July 4 weekend grosses come in," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California. "If 'Terminator 3' rakes in $100 million, do you think he can or will be allowed to walk away from that? I don't think so. If, on the other hand, it tubes, he may decide it's time to gracefully find another career."
At 55, Schwarzenegger presumably has more movies left in him. But there's no conventional calculation of how many productive years lie ahead for an action hero.
"I don't see how he can make 'Terminator 22: The Revenge of the Nursing Home,' " Jeffe said.
Gorton said Schwarzenegger's star power and can-do image will be enough to carry him through an abbreviated recall campaign.
"Arnold is the message," Gorton said. "He comes across so well with such charisma that people are moved to like him."
That won't cut it, said Ken Khachigian, Issa's campaign manager.
Schwarzenegger is described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but voters are going to want to know more, Khachigian said.
"If he's in the Central Valley, he's going to be asked about agriculture," Khachigian said. "If he's in Imperial, he'll get asked about water. If he's in Orange County, he'll be asked about the El Toro air base. He may have full and complete positions on all those things, but it's no longer just yukking it up on 'Late Night with Jay Leno.' "
Idler Yet has a recap (with links) of the Davis recall and the race for Governor of California. (via Instapundit --yes, he is back.)
And Idler Yet offers a movie review:
Dozens of reviews of Schwarzenegger's new movie, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines were clearly written before anyone set foot in the theater. For your typical scum-of-the-earth movie critic, of course, pre-judging this one is a no-brainer. This is a second sequel after a long wait, like Godfather III; Arnold is getting old, time to take him down; and the California election story supplies the hook: he needs to go into politics, because with this turkey his movie career is over, blah blah blah. (And there's no downside to trashing it. No critic ever lost face by slamming an sf action movie.) Well, it's all a crock. I just saw the movie, and�don't worry, no spoilers follow�while it lacks the dark gloss Cameron gave the first two, it's not a let-down, but a good solid thriller that establishes its sympathetic characters economically, moves assuredly, and after a too-familiar first twenty minutes makes several clever additions to the overall Terminator story-line. Arnold doesn't look his age either, and made me laugh with some frumious new facial expressions for the sf humanoid he plays and is. If you like this sort of thing, as Mr. Lincoln said, this is the sort of thing you will like. I certainly enjoyed it. But I only mention it here to make the point that it's going to be a big hit despite any pissy reviews you've seen, and therefore Schwarzenegger has options. He will be able to finance five more years of movies if that's what he wants to keep doing. If the recall election gets postponed to March, if it looks like he'll have to take on the popular Dianne Feinstein, he can pass the governorship up. But if he decides to go for it regardless of opposition, he'll have a winner's momentum behind him.
With petition organizers claiming over 1,000,000 signatures, a majority in California are now ready to unseat Gray Davis -- recalling a sitting governor for the first time in state history.
Arnold fires up the troops in Iraq. Quotable:
"First of all congratulations for saying hasta la vista baby to Saddam Hussein. I came here from the United States because I wanted to pump you all up ... This is really wild driving around here. I mean the poverty. And you see there is no money. Disastrous financially. Then there is a leadership vacuum. Pretty much like in California right now."
This will be Schwarzenegger's best shot, says Mickey�Kaus. But even this short race may still give Davis enough time to give Schwarzenegger the full multi-million dollar Davis treatment:
If you believe the LAT poll, the current drive to recall Gray Davis is clearly Arnold Schwarzenegger's best and perhaps only chance to become governor of California. Why? a) 53 percent of registered voters are "not inclined" to vote for him. In a head-to-head matchup against a Democrat, that number would normally be fatal. In a recall "replacement" election, where there might be no Democratic opponent and where you can win with only 25 percent or so of the vote, it might not be. b) Schwarzenegger needs as short a campaign as possible to prevent all the Democrats' potential dirt on him from sinking in with the electorate. Not only would a recall election campaign be short, it would also dilute the dirt--the Democrats would have to worry about tarring all the Republican replacement candidates, not just Schwarzenegger. ... Is there enough time, even in a rushed, chaotic recall campaign, to effectively trash Schwarzenegger? The Feiler Faster Thesis says yes! ... Otherwise, Schwarzenegger could be Governor of California by Halloween. ...
California Insider Daniel Weintraub makes his case:
Here�s how Ransom puts it:�Newspapers have choices to make -- if someone puts up a podium in a hotel conference room, what gets said at the podium does not automatically make it into the next days paper. It has to have news value.�
But that�s just the point. When forces working on behalf of the governor of California try to link his opponent to the Nazi party, it has news value. Not because it�s true or might be true, but because it demonstrates the character and the judgment of the man who would allow his campaign team to make such allegations. If the governor said he thought little green men had landed from Mars and launched the recall, it would be ludicrous, but it ought to be reported, because the voters would want to know that the chief executive of their state had taken leave of his senses. The same is true here in a political context. Last year, when Bill Simon accused Davis of breaking the law by taking political donations in a state building, reporters were pretty sure the allegation was false before the papers went to press that night. The photo Simon supplied to back up his allegation was clearly not taken in the office he said it depicted. But we ran the story anyway, because it demonstrated that Simon was prone to making reckless allegations, and it told us (and voters) something about the way he manages a team of people. It is most definitely news when public officials lie or attempt to grossly mislead the voters, especially in a malicious way. Sometimes you have to report the lie in order to expose the lie.
It's hard not to be persuaded by any argument that says -- let the people know and let them decide. I remain uncomfortable with the idea of playing the political hacks' game when it gets this off-the-wall and this dirty. The hacks shouldn't have a media audience with this stuff -- they should be wandering the streets like a homeless men, videotapes in hand, ranting to the birds and clouds.
Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that man -- and his tree. Dan Walters almost has me convinced:
Taxation is, almost by definition, an arbitrary and wholly political act. Politicians decide what's to be taxed and what's not and much of tax policy is, therefore, nonsensical -- such as the disparate sales tax treatment of hot and cold foods. In that vein, it's irrational to levy property taxes on cars in the form of vehicular license fees -- treating them like land and houses -- while exempting other tools and pieces of personal property, such as computers or lawn mowers, or even other forms of wealth, such as shares of stock or jewelry.That said, it's perfectly logical, and even morally correct, for California's vehicle license fee (VLF) ... to be fully reinstated now that the state is experiencing its worst-ever budget crisis. The history of the VLF tax cut explains why ...
Personal note. While puting in my lawn, it struck me that the very dirt in my yard was taxed. Dirt. It seemed like taxing water or air or sunshine. But depending on how you go about getting them, I suppose those things are taxed as well.
Race to recall -- on target for well more than 1.2 million signatures by July 12. (graphic).
Arnie vs. Issa -- California Split? Quotable:
If the recall succeeds, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the next governor.
-- LA & Orange County Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
California Insider Daniel Waintraub posts the following comments on an entry below discussing the SacBee's news story on how the Davis camp has sought to link Issa with Nazis whackos:
Should newspapers spread lowly allegations leveled by state politicians? Prestopundit takes the Bee to task for reporting the allegation of Davis allies that Rep. Issa was somehow linked to Nazi sympathizers because he had a table outside a gun show at which Nazi memorabilia was shown at one booth among thousands of exhibitors. Aside from the fact that Prestopundit is guilty of the same crime of which he is accusing the press, I'd suggest that we are all correct in reporting the tactic. That's because I think the story here isn't the accusation but the accuser. This is the governor, not some two-bit nobody. And when the governor is willing to do this kind of stuff, you're actually protecting him by ignoring it. Voters need to see the depth of his desperation so they can use that to weigh other claims they hear from him. And by the way, Issa's Rescue California site posted the story, so I assume they agree.
Weintraub has a legitimate point -- up to a point. As we've known since at least Daniel Boorstin's The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, many political news stories are based on manufactured events -- such as the staged press conference. Anyone can manufacture news -- if you can get the news media to cover it. The LA Times has given several pages of coverage today to two guys who collected a total of four signatures (half their own) for a "petition" calling for Schwarzenegger not to run for Governor. The article is essentially an entertainment article, but when you are talking political personalities, the dividing line is very thin here. Two guys, a piece of paper, and four signature -- and you've manufactured "news" in the LA Times.
Newspapers have choices to make -- if someone puts up a podium in a hotel conference room, what gets said at the podium does not automatically make it into the next days paper. It has to have news value.
The question becomes -- does wild innuendo from a source of power qualify as news content, and if so, how should it be covered? This was the problem the press faced with the wild and false charges of Joe McCarthy (although McCarthy was in part working with word of mouth insider information that history has proved roughly true, in some instances -- lots else was grossly exaggerated or simply made up stuff).
On the side of making headlines and news stories out of this sort of stuff is the compelling argument that more information is better than less information (a very strong argument in my view). A second, related argument is that we should know about what sort of people these are who would do and say such things.
But this all becomes a chicken and egg problem -- if the press wouldn't put grossly false and out of the ballpark stuff from a manufactured "press conference" in the papers -- and in the headlines -- then the professional political people wouldn't throw this stuff against the wall, hoping to see what sticks. And it does stick. The lies and the innuendo become legend -- and then, for many, the fact. And you know what they say about legend -- when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. And as we have seen in case after case, eventually this is what the press does -- it prints the legend -- or some hazy cloud of legend, image, reputation, public perception -- and the facts gets lost, and damned.
If a story is simply false, silly, empty -- a nothing story, why make it a story at all. It's all fake news manufactured out of hot -- and poisonious -- air. Why let this fakery see the light of day -- why play the fake news game at all? The problem is that the press is part of the team building the news story out of thin air -- it wouldn't exist without their cooperation, even if the press intends not to cooperate by attempting to turn the story around on the political hacks pumping on the fake news pump. Many times what the political hacks deserve is simply for the press to walk away -- or not show up in the first place. A press conference on "Issa and the Nazis" should be one large empy hotel room with nobody present but a political hack or two dialing on his cell phone, trying to get a reporter on the phone .. or a date for dinner.
The Davis recall team says they have their 1.2 million signatures.
Calblog has looked into the laws covering the California recall.
Virginia Postrel has an interesting little blog note on the magical -- and deeply selfish "progressive" thinking of Californians. But there is also this note of (shocking!) good news:
On a positive note, Steve [Postrel] dropped by UCLA today and a former colleague told him that California's energy crisis disappeared as soon as consumer electricity prices rose. Now peak prices are very high, and people are careful about what they use. The price system works! It must be magic!
Why do they even put this shameful stuff in the newspaper? The SacBee is spreading the vicious innuendo of the Davis camp about Darrel Issa. This time Davis sinks to a new low with an ugly effort to associate Issa with Nazis. Shame on Davis. And shame on the SacBee for not keeping this rotten garbage in the dump where it belongs.
Recall leaders to Sec of State Kevin Shelley -- we'll see you in court.
Fatcats, no, make that Republicans Against the Recall.
The Issa for Governor campaign has gone drive-time with radio spots. This thing is getting serious folks.
Mark Glaser has a really interesting piece on California Insider blogger Dan Weintraub. Oh, yah, Dan is also a veteran political reporter for the SacBee. Lots of the best stuff on the Davis recall and the California budget crisis is coming out of the SacBee -- and Weintraub's blog gives you the feel of the "inside" of these major news stories (to coin a word).
Recall Watch has a good collection of constantly updated articles on the Davis recall and the campaigns of Issa, Schwarzenegger, and Simon.
Recall Watch has the who's who of donors -- and the how much -- on the cynically named "Taxpayers Against the Recall -- a murderers row of cash cows sucking big-time off the government's teats. Chart the flow of money -- Davis takes the money from you, Davis passes it off to these folks, and these folks hand it back to Davis, in exchange for hundreds of times more in big time government loot. It's a suckers game, and you, the taxpayer, are the sucker.
"I'm looking forward to doing many more films".
Including "Conan the Barbarian 2". Is Arnold simply doing a Donald Trump move with the voters of California? Colin Powell and others have proved that the electorial tease generates interest -- and sells.
"You're terminated" -- "a slogan intended for poor Gray Davis?" The NY Times reviews T3.
Weintraub has his list of cuts for California -- many of them endorsed by Gov. Davis in some alternative universe life.
The SacBee's Dan Walters is on fire:
A sad but undisputed syndrome of humankind's unquenchable thirst for oil is that the discovery of rich petroleum deposits in Third World nations usually brings few benefits to their impoverished residents while fueling corruption, despotism, internecine warfare and economic decay. Quite often, international financial bodies such as the World Bank intervene and compel these nations to adopt more realistic, if austere, fiscal policies because they have proven themselves incapable of managing their own affairs.The latest poor nation to experience an oil boom is Chad, where an international consortium led by Exxon Mobil Corp. is investing $3.5 billion to develop oil fields. But this time, the World Bank is trying to interrupt the familiar pattern by setting up a broadly based committee to ensure that the $100 million annual revenue flow to Chad is spent for public benefit, not siphoned into Swiss bank accounts.
The new approach could, the Wall Street Journal says, "reverse the violent curse of oil money in Africa. In recent years, the gross domestic product of some oil-rich nations has actually declined, amid bloodshed and corruption."
Here's a thought: When the World Bank is finished with Chad, it should come to California, whose public finances these days resemble those of a Third World corruption pit more than those of a modern, presumably enlightened, industrial society ..
Read the rest.
The Orange County Register editorial page has a web page devoted to The Davis Recall Effort, which includes a link to a collection of letters on the Davis recall. A meatier site is their web page devoted to the state budget crisis.
The San Bernadino Sun has a good article on Schwarzenegger - with long quotes from the T man. And this:
a quick flip through the massive "T3' press kit reveals a 4 1/2-page Arnold bio -- only two of which are devoted to his sporting and cinematic accomplishments. The rest are taken up by praise of his business acumen as well as his lobbying and legislative efforts on behalf of voter-friendly programs for children.
The Guardian does the Schwarzenegger - California recall story. The tabloidy stuff is down toward the bottom.
Ward Connerly's "racial privacy" initiative will help power anti-Davis voters to the polls in the event of a November recall election.
LA Times on the Schwarzenegger for Governor story. Quotable Arnold:
"In a few days from now, I do have to make a very, very � probably one of the most difficult � decisions of my life: what to wear on my opening day of 'Terminator 3.' ""
The Geezer Continent by 2050 median age of Europeans will be 52. And currently, less then 2 out of 5 men age 55 to 65 still work. Austrian economist Erich Streissler offers some analysis in this NY Times news article.
The recall -- just another chance to hit up Davis for favors. File this one under "your tax dollars at work".
Ted Costa is claiming 1,000,000 signatures. He's also throwing down the gauntlet with Kevin Shelley, putting him on notice that he has a Constitutional duty to obey the law as specified in the California Constitution.
(But hey, who gives a rat's behind anymore about what a Constitution might say? What the folks in academia, in the media, and in government want are favoured outcomes, and dedication to principles be damned. The law? Who needs it -- when there's an agenda to protect and a money train to keep rolling.)
Davis Recall.com is claiming 892,430 unverified signatures in the recall effort. 898,157 valid signatures are required to put the measure on the ballot. If these numbers are in the ballpark, the recall goes over the top this weekend with signatures -- leaving 300,000 or so more needed to assure certification. But it may not even take that many, if reports are true that the validity rate of the signatures is exceptionally high.
CaliforniaRepublic.com is tracking the Davis recall at a blog called The Recall Follies.
Recall overview from the Cox News Service. Quotable:
"We're just exercising the old lemon law," explained Ted Costa, an anti-tax activist helping lead the recall campaign. "It's just like when you return a car that's burning oil or that has a leaky transmission -- but we want to return the governor."
Ananova -- Schwarzenegger 'wants to be governor of California'. And this:
[Schwarzenegger political adviser George] Gorton confirmed Schwarzenegger has been having discussions with political insiders and potential supporters.
Schwarzenegger -- "definitely interested" in running, say folks close to the "Terminator".
"There is no money over there. There's no leadership, pretty much like California."
-- Schwarzenegger on Iraq, where he's headed next. And this:
"My kids are normal kids. They go to the mall and pass out recall petitions."
The smart money says he's running.
Recall offices open in Central California -- and "Rescue California" turns in another 150,000 recall signatures. We're on a roll folks.
Davis recall causes Green Party turmoil. Quotable:
[Green Party official Peter] Camejo said Davis is a �corrupt� figure who deserves to lose his job.
The Chronicle on the effort to intimidate recall petition workers.
More on Davis's bare-knuckles anti-recall effort. (via Calblog)
"Listen, Arnold is great," Kennedy said. "And I never argue with Arnold, particularly when he's holding me by my ankles upside-down. But I intend to support the Democrat [in the California recall election]".
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
"The Notorious GOP" -- Schwarzenegger appears on Leno. Some campaign slogans for Arnold:
"Who better to represent a state where no one speaks English?""Not a good enough actor to fool you on taxes."
Rescue California keeps tabs on the latest recall news here.
Hot recall news. California Insider reports that the California's Democrat Sec. of State has issued an edict bending -- no, breaking -- the law of recall signiture verification, so that the recall election will be effectively pushed back to March, rather than allowing for a November recall election.
Lobbying Central's Recall Watch is following the money.
Arnold on the Stern show talking about nudity .. oh, and public service:
At one point or another, after having thought so much about yourself and building yourself a career . . . and making $30 million (a movie), all of those kinds of things -- it's time to give something back to the community," he said. "For the last 15 years, I've been working very hard to give something back to this country that has given me so much."
And this:
Schwarzenegger said that .. he pushes his four kids to stretch the boundaries. But in sports, he doesn't like to hear excuses like "they maybe have a better team. (I say) 'There is no such thing as a better team,' " he laughed. " 'Now, go out there and crush the enemy.' "
What to make of the "Issa was a car thief" accusations? Well, it's more reason to hope that Arnold will make the run. But I can't help but point out that lots of very cynical political folks were all too comfortable with a President accused of being a rapist by a very credible victim with very compelling testimony and evidence. If Issa was a car thief, I don't want him in the Governor's Mansion, just as I don't want a rapist in the White House. But with so much money and power on the line with today's all-powerful political arrangements vast numbers of people are ready to sell out for all that comes with the money and power. It's part of the logic of "why the worst get to the top" in a government-heavy system, as Friedrich Hayek explained long ago in The Road to Serfdom.
What is Davis resigns? The details from Election Law. (via Kausfiles, where you'll find more on what a resignation might mean.)
Dan Walters on the California budget disaster -- how Davis did it. Money quote:
The failure of Davis and lawmakers to wisely manage the bounty was a gross dereliction of public duty.
UPDATE: And don't miss this USA Today report -- bad government and not the economy is to blame in state after state around the country.
California Congressional delegation on Issa and the recall.
UPDATE: California Insider has the scope on the count .. the numbers on hand and in the pipeline are much higher than those reported. Weintraub's conclusion, "I still think the campaign has an excellent chance of qualifying by July 23."
The United States needs a Constitution like California's.
Forget the idea that Gray Davis might resign. As California Insider explains, it ain't going to happen, and folks like Bob Novak have the law all wrong in any case:
If, somehow, he does [resign], let�s clarify what happens. Novak wrongly states in his column that Davis could derail the recall "at any time prior to the actual balloting by just quitting." Not true. The state elections code says the election goes forward if Davis quits after the petitions have been filed.
Here is Nick Schulz's LA Times article, "Internet Puts the 'e' in Recall".
Pathetic Earthlings is doing some good recall blogging, including this Issa update.
Hugh Hewitt -- off on an LA Times / car tax rant. (via Calbog)
The wonders of the web -- transcript: inside the Sac Bee's editorial room debate on what to think the recall. The Bee invited Prof. Bruce Cain of UC Berkeley, and Prof. Kenneth Miller of Claremont-McKenna College to participate.
And here is what the Bee decided.
Why no Demos in the race to replace Davis? Well, this is why:
One after another, at the urging of labor leaders who support the governor, five of Davis' fellow Democratic officeholders said last week that they do not intend to run should a recall make the ballot.
Read the article for a rundown on what the race for Governor may look like.
UPDATE: Feinstein is out.
Slate profiles Gray Davis, including this:
Davis certainly won't ward off a recall by selling his winning personality to voters. If a man is to be judged by the friends he keeps, Davis is hard to judge�because he doesn't have any. "Gray doesn't really have any friends," an anonymous "Davis associate" told the LA Weekly last year. "He has supporters. His friends are his supporters." Or, as one of Davis' Stanford fraternity brothers complained to the Los Angeles Times, "He's a cipher." Unlike the typical gregarious pol, Davis appears to be completely uninterested in people. As a former Davis staffer put it to the Orange County magazine OC Metro, Davis is "not the type of individual who wants to get to know you. He's interested in what you produce, but not interested in you."
Calblog gives a good Fisking to the Democrats who write the editorials for the NY Times -- on the topic of the California recall.
Arnold Schwarzenegger will make his decision to run for Governor in early July, his top political advisor says. But it looks to me like he's already made the decision:
When asked this week by the Entertainment Tonight television show whether he was interested in running for governor of the state once ruled by another ex-actor called Ronald Reagan, Arnie replied: "I am always interested."And last week, the Austrian-born screen icon told Esquire magazine: "If the state needs me, and if there's no one I think is better, then I will run."
Gov. Davis -- what do you think about the recall? ..
The Weekly wanted to ask Davis about Schwarzenegger�s pointed recall joke after Davis gave a rare public speech � he is only now starting to talk in public about his budget � last week to the L.A. Chamber of Commerce (the chamber backs tax hikes), but the governor evaded waiting reporters by slipping down a back fire escape.
Some historical background on the California recall. I liked this line:
It's kind of the American equivalent of the vote of no confidence that parliamentary systems have.
California Insider gets an email from a recall petition volunteer:
"I have not taken a single penny and I am now approaching 4000 signatures. I will be in Galt on Saturday with my eleven year old daughter working a table at the Galt auction getting signatures. Tonight we are going over to the People's Advocate to process petitions. This movement has a viral effect. Everytime I obtain a signature, I ask the person if they would like two petitions to take with them. I had one woman take ten and return them signed. I pick them up from people everyday. One man who works at a Chevron here in Elk Grove has collected 75 signatures for me and is still going strong. This is OUR Boston Tea Party! This is the first time I have actually been politically active in my life. I wanted to prove to friends and family one man can make a difference...I was out talking to Farmers in Herald this morning with my two little girls in tow. They had already signed the petition. The feedback is the same with teachers, rank and file union, state workers, truck drivers, and people from other walks of life ad infinitum."
And don't miss Weintraub's thoughts on the charge that the recall process is anti-democratic.
Davis & Co. pull the trigger on the California car tax -- sealing the governor's fate and guaranteeing a tax revolt like California has not seen in a generation. Tom McClintock, John & Ken, and an army of millions now plan to either reduce the car tax to $1 per vehicle or eliminate the car tax altogether. Here is McClintock's article on car tax and the budget. You can download and sign either the $1 statutory measure or the constitutional measure to eliminate the car tax at McClintock's web page.
The recall in San Diego. A voter weighs in:
"It just seems he has his hand in the till all the time and I'd like to slam his fingers in it.""
A random check of Contra Costa recall petitions shows a 90.6 percent validity rate, the highest rate ever seen by county clerk-recorder Steve Weir.
The internet -- it's taking Davis down:
"We've had five million hits on our Web site in the five weeks since we started this"
-- Sal Russo, Davis recall organizer, May 30.
Gov. Davis Recalled by Consumer Safety Commission (2003-06-10)-- Short-circuiting a voter campaign to remove California Gov. Gray Davis through a special election, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today issued a recall on the faulty politician.
During Mr. Davis' re-election campaign, CPSC members watched with concern as his claims of fiscal responsibility inflated uncontrollably. Now that he's in office, the same thing is happening to the state budget deficit, which has ballooned to $38 billion.
"It reminds us of the automobile airbag issue a couple of years ago," said an unnamed member of the commission. "Those things would just blow up. We're recalling the product to protect the people of California."
It's ScrappleFace
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
The campaign to Crush Dissent continues. The enemies of free speech are at it again, attacking Issa's right to political expression. Last time I looked, we still had a 1st amendment.
Now its Lt. Gov. Bustamante who says he's out if the recall happens. Evidently the political geniuses in the Democratic party believe that the Governor's chances of staying in office are higher if there are no Democratic choices on the ballot for Governor at the time of the recall vote. Fat chance. Quotable:
over 35 percent of the people in [Davis's] own party say they'll sign our petition if they have the opportunity," said Dave Gilliard, director of Rescue California Recall Gray Davis.
Ouch. This comes on top of news that Davis's approval rating has sunk to only 38% among Democrats.
Xrlq has coverage of the tactics being used by anti-recall folks. Hot stuff! (via Calblog).
"it is a matter of time before [the computer and the internet] transform the way we govern ourselves". -- Gray Davis
From a great piece by Nick Schulz in the LA Times on the internet and the Davis recall. A tasty chunk:
There have been 31 attempts to recall California governors, but so far none has gotten the requisite number of valid signatures to make it to the ballot � 12% of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. But combine direct democracy with technology and the process gets a goose.For instance, there is a proliferation of Web sites, such as http://www.RescueCalifornia.com , that makes the once-arduous process of signature gathering a lot easier.
At http://www.RecallGrayDavis.com , the Web site for the recall organization started by former California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, it's possible to download and fill out the petition form in a matter of seconds. You have to mail it in, but it still means that if you're listening to the radio at work and another story about the California budget crisis airs, you no longer need to vent your civic frustration at the water cooler. Instead, log on and turn your anger into action.
Pat Knepley, a California resident, recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times, proudly claiming that she had done just that: "I signed the recall petition against Davis. I took the initiative to download it through my computer because I am so frustrated with what he is doing and has done to our state."
Political revolutionaries, especially of the armchair variety, never had it so good.
Or consider how new technology can steamroll the traditional dynamic between business and politics.
The California Business Roundtable, made up of California chief executives, came out against the recall effort, believing the tumult would not be good for business. But in short order, the Roundtable and its member businesses such as Safeway and Southern California Edison were inundated with complaints about their position.
"I've gotten besieged with e-mails," Doug Kline of San Diego-based Sempra Energy told The Times. "Most of them say something like, 'We can't believe you've opposed the recall of Gray Davis. He's hurting small businesses.' "
Not that long ago, establishment groups like the Roundtable would have spoken for business interests in California. But with e-mail and the Internet, the monopoly on message has been broken.
Moreover, the Internet creates an echo-chamber effect, amplifying political noise across various forms of media. Most talk-radio shows now have an online component, and they use their Web sites as repositories to get information to their fans and listeners. Fans of the "John and Ken Show" can go to http://www.JohnandKen.com , where they'll be fed news and information of the recall.
And Web logs � "blogs" � the increasingly popular online diaries, are fast becoming another recall tool. PrestoPundit.com and similar sites have a small audience, but they have outsized influence because journalists and news junkies spend a considerable amount of time searching blogs for story ideas, commentary and political dish. When an issue catches fire in the blogosphere, it can boost the buzz and prolong the life cycle of a story. Just ask Trent Lott.
Yep, that's PrestoPundit mentioned there. Check out the "tracker" on the major blogs and you'll notice that folks from the NY Times, Reuters, Fox, etc. are reading. They've been reading me. And I'm just one of the new kids on the block.
There is a Recall in California reference page with lots of links from the UC-Berkeley library.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
I trust that you read that in your best Gregory Peck or Charlton Heston voice.
Davis is a goner for lots of reasons, but the whole thing is symbolized by how Davis & Co. are giving it to us with the car tax. The California Insider explains:
I'm blogging this morning aboard the Capitol Corridor train to the Bay Area, via a wireless connection through my cell phone. Pretty cool. Here is a link to today's column, in which I describe how the Legislature's lawyer has cast doubt on the legality of the governor's plan to triple the car tax. My colleague Alexa Bluth, meanwhile, reports that the administration is set to pull the car tax trigger any day. I wouldn't expect the new legal opinion to affect that decision. There is a long history in the Capitol of ignoring the Legislative Counsel when their advice goes against what the majority wants to do. But don't be surprised if someday a court throws the whole thing out.Also, aside from the legal questions, isn't the way Davis is raising this tax incredibly cowardly? Does he really expect people to believe that it's somehow a decision made by robotics, untouched by human hands? I still maintain that this habit of his of denying responsiblity for his decisions is as big a factor in his unpopularity as his policies themselves. This one is starting to look remarkably like the electricity rate increase of 2001. That was the right thing to do, but Davis could never bring himself to advocate for it, and denied that he had anything to do with it after it happened.
The Davis recall Radio ads are up on the web.
UPDATE: I can get the text, but the MP3 isn't working. hmm. Yesterday the link went to a blank page. Looks like the RecallGrayDavis.com techies are still figuring things out.
What it's like out there:
If Gov. Gray Davis has any doubts that he's in deep, deep political trouble, he should spend a few hours with Burt Pronin.I ran into Burt outside an Albertsons supermarket in Brea the other day. An affable, silver-haired 73-year-old wearing shorts and a Hawaiian-style shirt, Burt was relaxing in a lawn chair near the store entrance, next to a tiny sign that said "Recall (Remove) Governor Davis," holding a sheaf of blank recall petitions in his lap.
And passers-by were eagerly lining up to fill in the blanks.
"Where do I sign?" one guy walked up and demanded. "Can I sign more than once?" a woman asked. "Can I sign it, like, a million times?" a store checker on break wanted to know.
And so on. In 15 minutes, with virtually no effort on his part, and without ever stirring from his lawn chair, Burt collected seven signatures � along with a dozen expressions of support from passers-by who said they had already signed a recall petition.
"This is not a hard sell," Burt said, chuckling. "I don't even have to approach them; they come to me!"
Read the rest. And the numbers:
Recall organizer Ted Costa told me that as of Tuesday he had turned in 506,496 signatures to the secretary of state's office, and that 300,000 more signatures are already "in the pipeline."
900,000 valid signatures are required for recall.
The Wall Street Journal --on California & the growth of small business:
California is still one of the best places in America to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large one.
It's a joke. Just a joke.
Ted Costa offers the Governor a deal -- "balance the budget and get the state out of the financial mess it's in" and he'll cancel the recall. That's right, Costa, as the man who filed the original recall, can withdraw his notice of recall at anytime, bringing the recall effort to an immediate halt. Quotable:
"I'm willing to stop the recall if he's willing to stop handling the budget crisis with smoke and mirrors.''
Who wrote these laws, anyway?
MORE: Costa on the campaign trail.
Ted Costa runs People's Advocate, founded by tax fighting legend Paul Gann. Worth quoting:
The California Constitution gives enumerated powers to the legislature. But the people of California have reserved the right of initiative, referendum and recall. We promote the use of these powers reserved by the people to fight higher taxation and to promote reform.
The signatures roll in from Napa Valley. But some wine & cheese Democrats get verbally abusive with signature collectors. On a positive note, it's good to see so many volunteers are out collecting signatures, not just the hired professional folks.
Total recall -- blame the internet:
If people aren't swarming shopping malls and camping out at post offices, how are people getting petitions and signing them? The mail and the Internet .. Charles C. Turner, assistant professor of political science at Chico State University, said the recall is at the confluence of technology, a weak economy and a $40 billion state budget deficit. "It's really weird that there is so little (visibility)," Turner said. "When (Ross) Perot was trying to get on the ballot, there were swarms of people and campaign signs." Turner was astounded that proponents were able to collect so many signatures in so little time. The threshold is 12 percent of voters from the last election, not the 5 percent needed to qualify an initiative.
Imagine the whining if Bill O'Reilly was governor of California, and not simply a TV celebrity.
There are continued reports across the state of California that the Davis anti-recall campaign is running a bogus petition drive, which fools folks into signing a meaningless anti-recall petition, when what the voter would like to do is dump the governor out on his behind. It's big time union money paying for hired gun hacks without an ethical bone.
Richard Riordan discusses the Davis recall. Quotable:
somebody like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I think, would be a great new governor, somebody who would put power and hard, hard work into the equation. We are running, what, $28 billion, $38 billion budget behind. We have to borrow $21 billion to pay our cash needs through the end of August. We're in big trouble.
"Sources tell this writer Schwarzenegger has agreed to run, that ex-L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan supports him, that he has begun to reach out to the right" -- Pat Buchanan
It's "a profound threat to democracy". What is? Well, a democratic vote on whether to remove Gray Davis from office, and elect -- yes, elect -- a new Governor. Says who? So says California's very frightened Demo attornery general -- who seems to have flunked both civics in high school and constitutional jurisprudience in law school. The article notes that a majority of the state's top Demo state officials say they won't run if Davis is recalled. Could it be that a Republican will run unopposed on the ballot by any major Democrat?
Dianne Feinstein fights the recall, warning again "fringe candidates". But the big question is, will she run and who would replace her?
Voters stand 30 deep to sign Davis recall petition.
Don't miss the "Bye Bye to the Gray Davis Guy" song.
429,531 signatures files so far by the Gray Davis Recall Committe -- only one of several groups collecting recall signatures.
Government workers are funding the anti-recall campaign .. and they're also behind a bill which would give cities and counties the power to confiscate worker incomes. Another backer of the anti-recall campaign is the Zenith Insurance Co., a company dependent on California's insane workers' comp system -- one of the leading job killers in the state.
The California recall forces have an anti-Davis radio spot up on the air.
Issa's Davis recall site can be found here. The SF Chronicle has Issa already in the race for governor. Roger Hedgecock of San Diego's KOGO is keeping a web link rundown of recall coverage.
Calblog is blogging the recall -- and making sure to take some time out to have a life.
The LA Times on Issa and the recall. A pro-Davis, anti-Issa talking points roll call.
Issa on Issa -- and the recall:
In many ways I'm like that 17-year-old who wanted to go to the Army to save the world. I may not be the most equipped, but I'm the most motivated.
And this:
Getting rid of a thoroughly dangerous man who is destroying our state is what the recall is all about,
Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0)
Businesses gets slammed for opposition to the Davis recall. Heh.
California Insider -- non-union workers back Davis recall:
In the latest sign that the Davis Recall is going mainstream, the Associated Builders and Contractors of California has just announced that it will join the effort and will contribute money and muscle to help it pass. The group cited crises in workers compensation and health insurance and what it called the governor's "endless crusade" on behalf of labor unions against non-union, or merit shop, employers. Among the administration actions that have angered the contractors are a recent move to expand the prevailing wage standards to cover fabrication and assembly work done off-site for public works projects, and a years long campaign to shut down non-union apprentice training programs. ABC lobbyist Matt Tennis said he expects many of the association's 1,400 members to help gather signatures and provide other services to help oust Davis. ABC is the biggest major interest group to join the recall campaign.
Issa -- a single candidate is needed to win the Governorship and fix California. Money quote:
That candidate cannot be a candidate that has a social agenda. That candidate has to be a candidate willing for three years to be hated, be hard, be difficult, be cantankerous, be 'veto' and 'veto' and 'veto,' if necessary, to straighten out this state."
What does the California legislature want to do with it's $2.4 billion federal bailout? It wants to waste it on NEW spending programs, of course. Jill Stewart reports from Sacramento:
NOT LONG AGO the Assembly Appropriations Committee, facing California's $38.2 billion budget deficit, shelved one proposed spending bill after another, spending being a pointless topic. I watched as committee chairman Darrell Steinberg noted the only good news was that President Bush was sending Sacramento $2.4 billion in relief. Hearing news of the inbound $2.4 billion, a member of the committee declared, "Well, maybe now we'll be able to fund some of these programs we are talking about!" .. One man remarked how easily fat cats burn our money. But to my consternation, many in the hearing room were nodding, agreeing the $2.4 billion should be quickly spent.
More:
Gov. Gray Davis and the majority Democrats are asking taxpayers to cough up $8.3 billion in new taxes -- including $4 billion in tripled auto license fees, making California's taxes the highest by far .. Democrats have clung to huge spending programs and made only the barest in real cuts -- $3 billion or so from a $78 billion budget. Up nearly $20 billion from 1998, California spends almost twice per capita what Arizona spends to deliver state services.
This is rich. While Gray Davis runs the state of California as his personal shake down operation, his supporters attempt to smear Issa with charges that Issa's recall support violates new federal anti-free speech legislation.
Speaking on the radio today about the Gray Davis recall, Darrell Issa said make no mistake about it "this is a tax revolt." Commenting on the budget crisis and state of the economy he added, "You can't tax yourself into prosperity".
The OC Register has a profile on Issa and the recall drive.
An new poll brings bad news for Gov. Davis in California:
Three out of four likely voters -- 75 percent -- disapprove of his performance on the state budget and taxes. Among Californians in general, 64 percent disapprove of his overall job performance.
The complete poll can be found here.
Who's afraid of the California recall? -- Debra Saunders is.
"This is really embarrassing. I just forgot our state governor's name, but I know that you will help me recall him."
John Fund: Gray Davis -- meet the Terminator. Money quote:
California's .. revenues grew dramatically -- by 27% during Mr. Davis's first term. But spending went up 36% during the same period. If the state had only held spending growth to the increase in population and inflation, it would be enjoying a $5.5 billion surplus now.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the Davis Recall calendar. Scroll down for MAJOR NEWS on the Davis recall effort.
CALIFORNIA BULLETIN:
"Our elected officials in Sacramento are facing a budget crisis unseen in this state since the Great Depression, and it was entirely avoidable .. Teachers are getting pink slips, cops are getting laid off and the taxpayers are facing an increase in taxes and California's future is in danger."
Arnold Schwarzenegger, last night before the Club for Growth in Los Angeles -- an event making the 25th anniversary of the Proposition 13 tax revolt.
Schwarzenegger at one point in the speech remarked that he'd forgotten the governor's name, but added, "I know that you will help me recall him."
More Schwarzenegger:
"There comes a point when we the people must demand more out of our elected officials than for them just showing up .. Howard Jarvis used to say it is time to show the politicians who is the boss. We are at such a point right now, ladies and gentlemen."
The two best Gray Davis recall web sites I've found is are these: RescueCalifornia.com and RecallGrayDavis.com
And who opposes the recall? -- Those who've pocketed the most cash: state prison guards, firefighters, and big business.
UPDATE: A new California polls show voters ready to lash out at politicians behind the state's budget meltdown -- and the constant drumbeat for ever higher tax increases.
Time magazine has a consultant saying this:
"The odds of the recall qualifying have increased to the point of near certainty."
The Washington Post has a long story on the Davis recall.
The LA Times has a feature story on Congressman Darrell Issa, who's leading the recall of Gov. Davis in California. Key fact: Issa has given $645,000 to the recall effort -- so far. Most of the article appears to be a bit of an early hit piece against Issa and his likely run against Davis should the recall succeed. All indications are that it will.
Meanwhile, Reuters leads with news that the Davis recall is moving ahead quickly. Key fact: recall organizers likely have 700,000 signatures already -- only 897,158 valid signatures are required. Organizers say that something like 1.2 million recall signatures should assure enough valid signers for recall success.
CALIFORNIA BULLETIN: Arnold Schwarzenegger backs Gov. Davis recall, calls for voter revolt. Tells audience he can't remember the governor's name, would like them to help him recall .. California's can join the recall at GrayDavisRecall.com
David Horowitz comes out against the Gray Davis recall campaign.
California -- still an energy business basket case.
Bruce Bartlett celebrates the 25th anniversary of Prop 13. I loved this bit:
economists at the University of California at Los Angeles predicted that the state's unemployment rate would rise by 4.5 percentage points .. if [Prop 13] was enacted.
Of course, instead of rising 4.5 percent the unemployment rate in California fell below the national rate for the first time in years.