PRESTOPUNDIT -- "It's a team sport, baby!"

BILL WHALEN

on the California propositions.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER'S

BALLOT MEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS. Quotable:

Reasons to Vote NO on Proposition 66 .. Governor Schwarzenegger�s Analysis

* 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: Jerry Brown, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian join Schwarzenegger in the NO on 66 campaign.

UPDATE II: Movie buddy Jesse Ventura is ripping Schwarzenegger in a paid endorsement spot for Indian gambling interests backing Prop. 70, which Schwarzenegger opposes.

NO on 66 --

here is Gov. Schwarzenegger's NO on 66 ad spot (video).

NO on Cal. Prop. 66 --

criminal justice professor Jennifer Walsh explains why on the John & Ken show (audio).

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.

BLOGGER ENDORSEMENTS

for the California ballot are being collected by Professor Bainbridge. I'll be working on mine over the weekend.

JOHN & KEN

of KFI 640 - Los Angeles have come out with their California proposition endorsements (including handy links to the LWV "Smart Vote" guide). These talk hosts have as many listeners as the LA Times has readers, and when you figure that most people don't waste their time reading the editorial pages of Michael Kinsley's LA Times, these endorsements will have greater influential on the outcome of the elections than anything coming out of Michael "I live in Seattle" Kinsley. Two of votes John & Ken have been hammering hardest -- NO on Prop. 66 and NO on Prop. 67.

CITIZEN SMASH

has some very sensible California Proposition endorsements. For more detailed analysis see QandO's California ballot measure endorsements. Here's a suggestion -- print these up and take them in the voting booth with you.

SCHWARZENEGGER

will campaign for Bush in Columbus, Ohio on Friday, and then will do a San Diego to Bakersfield party bus campaign swing on Saturday.

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.

VOTE NO on Cal Prop 72 --

Wal-Mart has had enough of the lies and is fighing back with a major campaign contribution.

VOTE NO

on California Prop 71 -- Prof. Bainbridge has the details.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA is also having elections

next week -- if you weren't quite sure. A great place to follow the action is at Rough & Tumble, which has massive coverage of California politics. A recent link -- "L.A.'s lifetime jobs -- the dance of the lemons."

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 Million

The 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.

A TALE OF TWO AMERICAS

-- "BLUE LIKE ME" vs. "RED LIKE ME". Quotable:

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)

THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN

is the latest paper to endorse Bill Jones for Senate. Other endorsers are listed here.

CALIFORNIA VOTERS

are likely to pass some truly terrible laws a new LA Times poll suggests.

"THERE WAS NO SEX for 14 days,"

with wife Maria Shriver says Arnold Schwarzenegger, explaining the cold-shoulder he received after his rousing "Why I am a Republican" speech at the Republican National Convention. Schwarzenegger also says he may campaign for President Bush in Ohio, where he still sponsors an annual body-building competition.

BILL JONES VS BARBARA BOXER

ON THE ISSUES.

PATTERICO --

what "three strikes" gutting Prop 66 will do -- and how it theatens your family.

A JOB KILLER --

thumbs down on Prop 72, the measure which puts a policeman's gun to the head of California businesses and forces them to pay for the medical care of their employees. A businesses only choice? Leave the state -- and all to many businesses have proven they are all too eager to do so. Just give them another reason to escape the high taxes, the massive regulations, the incompetent workers comp system, the socialists in Sacramento, etc. etc. etc.

IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE

Patterico is back and blogging -- hammering hard on Proposition 66, the terrible measure which will gut the current "three strikes" law. There is important stuff happening in California, and it's time to call attention to it.

(And check out Patterico for occassional posting from the famed "Angry Clam".)

THERE WILL BE A SYMPOSIUM

on the Califorinia "Three Strikes" ballot measure at Jeff Lewis's So Cal Law Blog -- more details here.

THE NY TIMES

takes on the multiple worlds of Orange County, CA for the cocooned Manhattanites in New York state.

TIME FLIES --

it's been a year since we elected ourselves a new Governor here in California. Daniel Weintraub reflects.

(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.

IN CALIFORNIA

protecting illegal aliens from having their cars towed is more important than roads free of drunks. This too will be the fate of your own state. Just wait.

See also this.

THE RESPECTED SACRAMENTO BEE

is calling for the impeachment of California Sec. of State Kevin Shelley.

IS THE CHAIRMAN

of the House Rules Committee gay? Congressman David Dreier is the latest victim of a campaign by leftist gay activists to "out" gay Republicans. I have no idea what Dreier's personal life may be. The story is out there, and you should know about it. And you should know -- these are the current tactics of the left.

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.

SCHWARZENEGGER

answers his Austrian critics -- XRLQ has the full story in both English and German. Schwarzenegger had this to say about misrepresentations of his convention speech in the Austrian press, which falsely implied that Schwarzenegger said he'd seen Soviet tanks in his home region of Styria as a child:

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.

THE AP vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.

Schwarzenegger in his convention speech said, "I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector [of Austria]." He also said, "When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." If Schwarzenegger did visit the Soviet sector of Austria, then he did see tanks in the streets and Soviet communist control of the much of that sector's economy, as I indicated in this posting earlier. Now the AP has dug up folks in Austria to "prove" Schwarzenegger is a liar. How? By pointing out that the British sector of Austria where Schwarzenegger lived was not controlled by the Soviet communists. Get it? Well, I don't either. But note well, the AP fails to quote directly from Schwarzenegger -- and fails to report that Schwarzenegger specifically says that he had travelled to the Soviet sector. And as to Austria being socialist or not, I refer you again to my earlier posting and to this:

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.

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.

UPDATE: Powerline has more, including a picture.

SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT --

Larry Kudlow hears the coming clamor.

CALIFORNIANS

LOVE THEIR GOVERNOR.

SCHWARZENEGGER LAUNCHES AN AD CAMPAIGN

in Las Vegas encouraging businesses to come back to California. The answer of business folks? You've got to be joking. Quotable:

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 .. ".

IN CALIFORNIA

it's economic death by a thousand cuts.

CALIFORNIA'S LEGISLATORS?

-- Let's make them part-timers.

MEMO TO CALIFORNIA

from energy engineer Joseph Somsel: you face a stark choice, either massive increased reliance on foreign fossil fuels -- or build the damn nukes already.

THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET SMASHES THROUGH THE $100 BILLION CEILING.

And its another smoke-and-mirrors job, with massive borrowing and locked in future spending increases. And once again, Schwarzenegger rolls over for the Democrats.

SCHWARZENEGGER

is gunning for Democrats in contested seats across the state.

SCHWARZENEGGER IS NO FRIEND

of limited government Republicans. That's the assessment of Daniel Weintraub of the Sac Bee. Quotable:

"[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."

Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"WE AREN'T GIRLIE-MEN"

insists the California legislature. The response to Gov. Schwarzenegger came from the legislature�s five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus.

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."

TERMINATE

THE "GIRLIE-MEN" -- Schwarzenegger instructs California crowd:

"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.

WEALTHY CALIFORNIA MAN

attempts to buy his son's way out of jail.

Let's wreck is day and vote NO on 66.

"DON'T PUSH ME AROUND" --

Gov. Schwarzenegger to the Democrats in the California Legislature.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER

gets George Will'ed: "The musical 'Annie' taught, tomorrow is always a day away. Schwarzenegger, a political rookie, has a precocious understanding of the Annie principle of governance: Voters lavish approval on leaders who arrange for future voters to pay for current consumption of government services .. in the 14 months from May 1 [2004] through next June 30 [2005], there will be a 54 percent increase -- from $33 billion to $50.7 billion -- in [California's] debt backed by general fund revenue".

Schwarzenegger -- headed for a Failed Governorship.

"The governor who promised to attack California�s long-term, structural problems has abandoned that goal in this case in exchange for a couple billion dollars of short-term help with his budget problems. California needs a major overhaul of its entire system for financing state and local government. As part of such a reform, it might make sense to give the locals protection from future, arbitrary changes in the distribution of tax revenue. But instead of leading that discussion and using his power and popularity to enact it, Schwarzenegger is grabbing his $1.3 billion for two years and then trying to lock a dysfunctional system into the constitution."

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.

Howard Jarvis Ass. to Schwarzenegger -- Put up or Shut up.

"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!

California in Crisis.

"1200 retired LA County employees receive pensions of more than $100,000 a year .. ".

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.

Enron -- brought to you by leftist government.

"California's restructured electricity market was, in fact, the furthest thing from a capitalist jungle imaginable. The government forced electric utilities to sell off their power plants and discouraged them from buying electricity outside of a complicated state-managed spot market. Furthermore, the electric utilities were forced to open their power lines to anyone who wanted to use them -- like Enron -- under tightly regulated terms and conditions. The day-to-day management of the grid was likewise taken from the utilities and given to state regulators. While wholesale electricity prices were deregulated, retail prices remained tightly controlled ... It shouldn't come as a surprise to learn that companies like Enron figured out how to game the system... ".

Jerry Taylor quoted by Peter Gordon "Games To Be Gamed".

California Crisis Deepens.

"Preliminary calculations indicate that [Gov.] Schwarzenegger's concessions [to the Democrat legislature] since January have increased 2004-05 spending by $3 billion, raising it beyond the 2003-04 level .. Thus, if the pending budget is enacted, the state will have maxed out its credit cards and will face deficits of $7 billion or more in 2005-06 and around $10 billion in 2006-07 .. ".

MORE -- Dan Walters, "Schwarzenegger's failure makes new taxes inevitable."

$140,000 for a two-bedroom house.

In Watts. With millions of foreigners flooding into Southern California, the housing squeeze has made home ownership extremely difficult for low income Americans -- even with piles of tax dollars waiting at the ready to assist. Quotable: "Three decades ago, a California family earning about a quarter of the median income could afford a median-priced home. But today, a family would need to earn more than 160% of the median income to afford the same home."

Read the LA Times story here.

California Shakedown.

First there was The Trevor Law Group. Now the city of Fresno is the latest victim of lawsuit shakedown artist Morse Mehrban.

Remember -- this is important -- YES ON PROP 64.

Arnold vs. Flab.

John Fund takes a look at Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review. Quotable: "Gov. Schwarzenegger will be able to implement parts of the review by executive order." As for the rest, it's got to go through the Democrat controlled California legislature. My own call -- don't bet against the flabbly-assed porkers in Sacramento.

Cal Republicans to Schwarzenegger:

Don't be a sellout. Will Schwarzenegger sell out the state to far-left California Democrats? If it makes him look good in the big Democrat newspapers, he just might.

California in Crisis.

"What the story doesn't report is that the general fund cost of employee salaries and benefits in that county has grown by 25 percent in the past three years, from $466 million in 01-02 to $586 million for 04-05. Salaries and benefits as a share of the county's budget, meanwhile, have grown from 38 percent to 53 percent. Much of that has to do with Contra Costa's increasing pension costs, which are a leading indicator for the rest of the state .. ". More -- California Insider, "The story behind the story".

The housing bubble in PrestoPundit's home town.

The news about Ladera Ranch hits The New York Times.

Virgina Postrel explains my home town here.

The VP smacks down the insufferable Sen. Leahy.

VP: "I think a lot of my colleagues felt that, ah, what I said badly needed to be said. That it was long overdue." NC: "Pretty feisty guy, aren't you?" VP: "Well, I am usually calm, cool, and collected, and ordinarily I don't express myself in strong terms, but I thought it was appropriate 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."

Schwarzenegger -- How I Govern.

"Asked to describe his governing philosophy seven months after toppling Gray Davis in California's recall election, he said, "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women." He stopped himself. "Wait a minute, that's Conan," he said. "I stepped out of character here for a second."

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.

Gov. Pension Thievery -- ROLLBACK.

Or did Schwarzenegger roll the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.? Only time will tell.

California Madness.

One billion dollars spent on things like a male inmate�s breast reduction surgery and skin treatments for inmates at a Beverly Hills dermatologist. File this under "only in California".

Sacramento continues its war against California businesses.

"As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger crusades to make California more business friendly, Democrat lawmakers passed an array of bills last week that would impose a variety of fees and higher costs on businesses operating in the Golden State. In a weeklong blur of activity, the houses of the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed bills that would raise the minimum wage to one of the nation's highest levels; hit chemical companies with a fee to pay for new programs; keep it easy for employees to sue their bosses for workplace violations; and require the recycling of cell phones and fluorescent lamps. All .. make it harder to do business in a state that's already one of the nation's most expensive .. ". More "Bills from Legislature could raise costs for Calif. businesses".

Schwarzenegger on Schwarzenegger -- no vision for California, no fixed principles, still a fan of Milton Friedman.

"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.

Tracking by Race - California's dirty little education secret.

"For eight of the past 10 years, Garden Grove has had the lowest college-preparation rate � the number of students finishing college-prep courses with at least a C average � for Latinos in Orange County, despite winning national recognition largely for raising test scores. It is a paradox that runs rampant in Orange County and across California, where the frenzy over test scores has obscured what researchers say matters more to students' success - the classes they take in high school. In California the top-tier curriculum is required only of students who go straight to a university, but researchers say the classes could also benefit community-college students or workers who lay pipe. About a third of students overall and only 15 percent of Latinos in Orange County take these classes. Latinos are now the largest group in public schools here and statewide, but they are also the least- prepared for college - especially in Orange County, where the preparation rates for Latinos are lower than in San Diego, Riverside and Los Angeles counties .. ". MORE "Latinos pay price for missed chances".

Can you find a decent watermelon in So Cal?

Building a better grocery store watermelon.

Jobs -- Good News in California.

"Since July 2003, California entrepreneurs have created 134,200 new jobs in private-industry sectors ranging from construction to professional and business services. Total government employment declined in the period .. ". MORE "Greg Kaza on Jobs & California".

Pension thievery.

California cities borrow billions to pay six figure pensions to unionized government workers who retire at age 50. It's the stuff that's "legal" that is really criminal.

France, Germany & California.

The three places in the world were Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina says HP doesn't want to do business. MORE "A portrait of the actor as a young governor".

Fix California -- Initiative, Referendum & Recall are NOT the problem.

"Mention initiative, referendum, and recall to political insiders and you'll hear a one-word rebuttal: California! California politics is almost universally portrayed as, well, a little loony. California stands out from other states of the union, of course, for a host of reasons, from the sheer size and diversity of its population and geography to its more frequent use of initiative, referendum and recall. And California has its problems, no doubt about that. But loony? Not for its citizen activism. Citizen empowerment is not California's problem; time and again, it has provided the solution. California voters not only have a right to make these decisions, but they have also generally made the right decisions at the ballot box. Take the oft-maligned (outside California) Proposition 13 in 1978 and term limits in 1990 and the recall of Governor Gray Davis last year. In each case, the voters have been right on the mark. So, what's the problem? Why then hasn't California's initiative, referendum, and recall made the state a governmental paradise? Government by Referendum Initiative, referendum, and recall provide checks on government. They are not an alternative method of day-to-day management. It's our so-called representative bodies that are failing. The increasing use of the various processes of citizen-led democracy is a reaction to politicians' failures. Blaming California's fiscal woes on voter initiatives ignores the elephant in the room: the spending binge whereby Governor Gray Davis and the California Assembly nearly doubled state spending in less than a decade. When times were good, politicians spent as if there were no tomorrow; when times got tough, they whined and pointed fingers. As for the budgetary impact of voter initiatives, a study by Professor John Matsusaka of the University of Southern California found that initiative measures dictate only about 2 percent of state government spending. Professor Matsusaka concluded, "[T]he initiative process is a scapegoat for the inability of elected officials to manage the competing demands for public funds in a period of declining revenue." Not only is the blame unfounded, the initiative process provided Governor Schwarzenegger the very leverage he needed to succeed in starting to put California's fiscal house back in order. Key first steps, borrowing to avert the immediate crisis and taking steps to restructure and prevent future debt, were approved by the voters. And workers' compensation reform, long a sore point for businesses, found a legislative solution only after the governor again threatened the initiative. Again and again .. the problem is the Legislature. California's Assembly defines the term dysfunctional. Legislators are overpaid, over-perked, overstaffed, unaccountable and, thus, out of control. When Governor Davis was being recalled, opinion polls showed the legislature was actually even less popular. Term limits have certainly helped, creating the only degree of competition in the entire system. But term limits haven't yet fully kicked in. Senator John Burton, president of the Senate, has been in the legislature for 24 years. Other current members have served for as long as 30 years. Finally, with this year's elections, any legislator having served without interruption since voters passed term limits, back in 1990, will be removed. Best of all, term limits will continue to inject fresh blood into the system cycle after cycle. But term limits are not a panacea. As University of California-Irvine Professor Mark Petracca wrote, "Term limitation is only the first response to the problem of professionalization that increasingly permeates the entire American political system." Three Reforms California needs three additional reforms: a part-time legislature, de-politicized redistricting, and smaller legislative districts .. ". MORE "Fixing California".

"Everyone does it".

Teachers in California are helping their students cheat on standardized tests.

Weintraub on Schwartzenegger.

"This [NY Times editorial] is just the latest in a series of laudatory pieces on the new governor. I was bullish on him going in and I have been impressed with his approach to the job, but I feel now as if many observers are overreacting in the other direction. Schwarzenegger is not working political miracles. His first big accomplishment was a $15 billion bond to restructure state debt and a new budget reserve plan that fell far short of the spending limit he was seeking. His second major deal was a workers compensation agreement that passed only after it got a sign-off from organized labor. Meanwhile he has run into a brick wall with the public employee unions, is struggling to overhaul an out-of-control prison system, and has had to back away from a number of his most controversial budget proposals. He is not rolling over the Democrats in the Legislature so much as he is creating the appearance of doing so by declaring victory at just the right moment. But oddly, each time that happens he grows more powerful, and that makes it more likely that he will get his way in the future. He says he is succeeding, so he is. He is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy." "California Insider - Self-fulfilling prophecy".

Michael Kinsley.

The new editor of the LA Times editorial pages will spend 1/2 the year in Seattle. As Kinsley explains in an interview with Newsweek.

The bone dry West - an historical norm

"A world of eternally blue skies and meager mountain snowpacks [in the West] may not be a passing phenomenon but rather the return of a harsh climatic norm. Continuing research into drought cycles over the last 800 years bears this out, strongly suggesting that the relatively wet weather across much of the West during the 20th century was a fluke .. ". MORE "Drought Settles In, Lake Shrinks and West's Worries Grow".

UPDATE: .. but the AP blames "greenhouse gasses" and "global warming" for modern drought troubles in the West.

The Economist does California.

Cover story -- Is California Back?

And don't miss this: "A bad place to do business? Too much regulation, too little infrastructure".

Lead filled Mexican candy causing brain damage across California.

If any newspaper investigative report ever deserved a Pulitzer prize it's this one.

April 13 -- Tax Freedom Day in California.

The citizens of 40 other states will already be working for themselves by the time California reaches Tax Freedom Day, according to the Tax Foundation. Tax freedom day has already come and gone in dozens of states, but it's another week in the mines here in California.

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.

Effort to Gut California Three Strikes Law.

"The initiative is a pig in a poke. It's being sold as a combination "child protection" bill and a reasonable amendment of Three Strikes. It is neither. It is a wish list for defense attorneys .. And calling it a "child protection" act is one of the most brazen lies I have ever seen. This initiative will result in the release of violent criminals who will victimize children. More Patterico's Pontifications.

California in Crisis.

Public employees earn 6 figures and retire at 90 percent pay at age 50, community college teachers work 4 days a week, 9 months of the year and are paid $160,000+, prison guards earn tens of thousands more than school teachers -- you get the idea. California has the 8th highest tax burden in the nation, and still overspends its tax base by more than 9 billion dollars every year. OC Register's STEVEN GREENHUT explains CALIFORNIA'S OVERSPENDING CRISIS.

California in Freefall.

The well known NABISCO plant along I-5 in Buena Park is halting production. Quotable: "Last week's news that the cookie and cracker plant is closing shook the 235 workers and left them wondering what will happen next. Many of them have worked at the plant for 20 years or more. During that time, the manufacturing job market in California has turned almost pitch black, leaving the soon-to-be jobless workers with few options .. California has lost 355,000 manufacturing jobs in the past three years, according to the Employment Development Department. And unlike the national employment numbers, manufacturing in California will still have a hard go of it because of the high costs of doing business in the state, said Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

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".

OC News.

Gateway moves its headquarters to Orange County, CA.

OC Social Conservative Given the Boot.

Tom Fuentes is out as OC GOP chair.

California in Crisis.

"Public payroll soars. Salaries move far ahead of inflation .. ". more from the L.A. Daily News. Note well. You didn't read this in the LA Times.

California.

"Health insurance premiums rose faster in California last year than in the rest of the country, an ominous sign for a state struggling to maintain its economic competitiveness .. ". more on healthcare and the sick man of these United States. Note well -- immigration continues to be the word the LA Times dares not speak.

Birds Block Fence.

Seven birds -- that's right, seven -- stand between the US Border Patrol and 800 feet of fencing to keep out illegal aliens.

LA Public Schools.

"[the] district's students are 72 percent Hispanic, 12 percent African American, 9 percent white. Two-thirds of the students in kindergarten through third grade come from homes in which English is not the first language. The district, where students speak 72 languages, has more students -- about 750,000 -- than 27 individual states have and a budget larger than the entire state budget of Colorado ..". more GEORGE WILL on ROY ROMER and the Los Angeles public Schools.

CALIFORNIA CRIME.

"Already, the pay hikes have totaled 19 percent. And with more training stipends and fitness pay, easier sick leave policies, new overtime provisions and bigger pensions, the total package is going to cost California taxpayers an additional $600 million a year .. ". more -- HOW GRAY DAVIS STOLE YOUR PAYCHECK.

Disney.

Walt's daughter -- Eisner needs to go.

California. Moody's and Standard & Poor on California's financial outlook -- and its credit rating.

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. Field poll -- Kerry leads Edwards 3-1.

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.

Biotechnology. Science vs. California's bio-illiterate enviro-nuts.

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.

California. Red Skelton on U.S. Senate candidate Rosario Marin.

California. Exit California, exit poverty.

CBFL blogger Dale Franks brings you the latest Bear Flag League Roundup. Yeehaa!

U.S. Senate Candidate Rosario Marin on immigration, extradition and U.S.-Mexican relations.

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.

The latest California Bear Flag Review. Yes, I'm going to update my Bear Flag links, soon, soon.

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.

Now THIS is why we got ourselves a new governor!

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.

SoCalLawBlog has a handy California Budget Deal roundup of Blogosphere Reactions.

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.

Here's the new governor's web site. Maria has one too.

(via Angry Clam)

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".

Debra Saunders -- Lockyer is the new king of puke politics.

Robert Novak -- can California be saved?

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.

Democrat legislators in California fear Schwarzenegger -- and the voters. Good.

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.

Easterblogg on fires and forest management. (via Matthew Stinson).

A new Bear Flag Review.

What it was like 10 years ago in the Laguna fire.

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.

9,000 recall-related LA Times cancellations and counting.

Bill Whalen pumps more buzz into the Sen. Dennis Miller trial balloon.

NASA's gigantic closeup of the Southern California fires 10/27/03.

And view the updated animation.

Patterico reports from the new Disney Hall in Los Angeles. What did he think? We'll, lets just say he'll be back.

The national tax revolt rolls on -- slamming this time east into Ohio.

John Fund on Schwarzenegger in Sacramento.

Ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Southern California today.

.. 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.

Schwarzenegger and the California mystique. (via Roger Simon).

What's up with Schwarzenegger's face.

A blogosphere "Carnival of the Capitalists". Business / economics blogs sound off.

The latest Bear Flag Review.

Tammy Bruce -- defends her spot on the Schwarzenegger transition team.

Hugh Hewett on the Internet vs. the LA Times.

What next? a Sacramento bureau for ET?

blogoSFERICS has a blogosphere highlights roundup. Take a lookie.

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 Carroll

Carroll'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' Newsroom

The 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."

Long, entertaining piece on press coverage of Schwarzenegger's last days on the campaign trail.

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.

Matt Welch on why Schwarzenegger needs the media.

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.

David Broder exposed:

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.

Another John Carroll fisking.

LA Times editor John Carroll defends himself. Hugh Hewitt gives Carrolls defense a fisking.

Mark Steyn:

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)

Here's the Bear Flag roundup -- thanks to Miller's Time.

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.

Larry Kudlow -- Schwarzenegger will pump up limited government Republicans nationwide.

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?

The boys from the gym give their congratulations to "the oak".

Talk radio and California's bloodless coup d'etat.

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.

Variety calls the race to replace, and the winner is talk radio. (free trial subscription required)

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 Election Returns -- from the Sec. of State.

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.

Calbog on why to vote Schwarzenegger.

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.

LA Times -- it's working.

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.

Bill Bradley:

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.

Anger, cancellations for the LA Times.

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."

Andrew Sullivan:

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 ...

Stephen Moore -- the case for Schwarzenegger.

Jill Stewart

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 Stewart

I 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 ...

Read it all.

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.

A short history of the California recall.

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.�

Former NOW board director Tammy Bruce on Schwarzenegger, Clinton and the Democrats.

It's taboo. Don't compare Schwazenegger to the poweruful senior Senator of Massachusetts.

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.

Shriver on her husbands character -- and "gutter journalism".

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.

Another crude Schwarzenegger pick-up attempt from the 1970's makes news in the LA Times.

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.

Tomorrow's Field poll today:

Schwarzenegger 36
Bustamante 26
McClintock 15

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).

The Washington Times endorses Schwarzenegger.

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 ...

The Village Voice -- Orange County edition endorses McClintock.

"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.

Socialist Worker Online -- "Why Peter Camejo deserves your vote."

The Washington Post on the Schwarzenegger run for governor.

Comic headline of the day:

Despite his best personal touch, his message just isn't sticking

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 ...

Gallop's California recall poll analysis.

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.

Space aliens endorse Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger has lazy bureaurcrats in Sacramento very nervous.

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.

Another historic Schwarzenegger endorsement.

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.

Details of the USA Today / Gallop recall poll.

Xrlq has a "free Weintraub" blogosphere update / roundup.

In an historic first the California GOP endorses Schwarzenegger for governor.

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 Gallop/CNN poll -- Davis out, Schwarzenegger in.

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.

Professor Gary Galles -- Hiram Johnson would cheer.

Governor pay-to-play.

BE prepared -- a Washington Post Schwarzenegger profile.

Dennis Miller -- Schwarzenegger Gets My Vote.

Schwarzenegger sits down for a talk with the San Franscisco Chronicle-Democrat.

The Long Beach Press Telegram endorses Schwarzenegger.

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.

MECHA sparks "fracas" at UC-Irvine in confrontation with anti-descrimination protesters.

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.

Hugh Hewitt on McClintock and the Tomikazes.

Weintrabaub's California Insider blog is today's essential reading for race to replace junkies.

Help Charlotte Goland get a new neighbor. Vote Yes on recall.

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.

Issa endorses Schwarzenegger. McClintock calls on Schwarzenegger to pull out of the race.

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.

Voting in Los Angeles began two days ago on "early voting" touchscreen machines around the city.

Tammy Bruce endorses Schwarzeneggar.

What does Fresh Potatoes think? The NY Times wants to know.

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.

40 of the 58 Republican county chairmen endorse Schwarzenegger.

Issa will endorse Schwarzenegger in a joint appearance sometime Friday.

Internal polls show Davis getting the boot.

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.

What Jonah really thinks ..

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.

Peter Robinson drinks the kool-aid.

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.

Howard Kurtz covers the media coverage of the debate.

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.

LA Observed has a blogosphere debate score card.

"McClintock Fails to Prepare Debate 'Zingers'" -- ScrappleFace.

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."

The Washington Times gives a positive Schwarzenegger spin to its debate story.

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.�

California race-to-replace debate transcript.

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.

And here is Reuters debate story.

"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.

"It is time to let the people decide" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

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.

Get the story at Hugh Hewitt, Xrlq and InstaPundit. Read Calbog's thoughts.

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.

How Appealing gets bullhorn publicity from John & Ken.

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, Bob

Dan 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.

Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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 ..

Posted by Greg Ransom / Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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.

Get your Join Arnold yard signs.

"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.

Davis: "we have people from every planet on the earth in this state".

"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.

Schwarzenegger's reform agenda.

Feinstein has endorsed Sen. John Kerry. Have you heard? John Kerry once served in Vietnam.

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?

Hugh Hewitt:

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."

"

Fresh Potatoes rips law professor Rick Hasen.

KFI AM 640:

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.

If I had more time, I'd be blogging about this.

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.

Shelby Steele on Proposition 54.

Marc Cooper fisks MoveOn's 10 reasons to oppose the recall.

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."

George Will -- let California rot. Quotable:

California is the sick man of the Republic.

A shameful decision -- David Lambro.

Joseph Farah is ticked off, and rightly so.

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.

Mickey Kaus on Judge Richard Paez -- from the time of his confirmation March, 2000.

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?

The 9th circuit -- who are these political hacks wearing robes.

Treasure hunt! -- find the wackiest California legislation! -- a new contest at the SoCalLawBlog

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!

Schwarzenegger's Republican Convention speech.

"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.

Attorney Marc Levin:

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 ..

Read it all.

Debra Saunders:

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.

A long selection of excerpts from the 9th district ruling in HTML.

The 9th district decision is a clear error of law --Legal Theory Blog. A must read.

Riordan:

Having a rule of law that people can rely on with confidence is necessary for democracies to succeed ..

Read it all.

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:

The Democrats' most recent ploy has been to disparage the recall as the latest in a series of "undemocratic" efforts by Republicans to overturn the popular will. (How an election can be undemocratic is unclear, but never mind.) It will be interesting to see how they react to something that is truly undemocratic; i.e., a court's order that an election called pursuant to state law not take place.

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.

"Something is drastically wrong in this state when it's easier to get a California driver's license than it is to rent a video at Blockbuster. You need two forms of ID there."

-- 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.

Worth quoting:

"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.

Steve Hayward:

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.

Schwarzenegger statement:

�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.�

Eugene Volokh:

� .. 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:

Election Law

The Southern California Law Blog

California Insider

Yes on Recall, Yes on Schwarzenegger. Xrlq is pumped up and voting today.