I've been perplexed about what to do in the recall tomorrow.
For those of you who don't live in California, stick around and I'll explain why this matters to you.
Originally, I was hopeful that Arnold would run a real populist campaign, as opposed to an Astroturf one. But he did the - conservative - and probably smart thing, and surrounded himself with seasoned pros. Sadly, he didn't pick an All-Star Team, but he picked one that had played well together, and his key operatives come from the mainstream - not the looney right - of the California GOP.
A week ago, I was drifting toward "No" on the recall. Davis is mortally wounded politically, and the next three years would be a kind of 'caretaker' administration with the second-tier Democratic figures - Angelides and Lockyer, maybe Shelley - would really run the state.
I wasn't happy with that decision, but Arnie hadn't measured up, and there was just no way I could support the idea of the pander-bear Cruz in office.
Then came Friday.
The journalistic arm of the political establishment reached out and backhanded Arnold.
I'm sorry, but none of editor Jon Carroll's excuses wash. He said:
"We ran it when we felt it was publishable, I would have loved to have published it earlier."
He should have said:
"I know the timing looks bad for us. In retrospect, it was probably a bad call. But we published it when we felt it was publishable. Believe me, I would have loved to have published it earlier."
But he's far too arrogant to believe that. There's no way not to acknowledge the timing of this. Kaus even predicted it (hey does anyone know how to figure out the ID's for his individual posts so you can create direct links?); he explained:
"Wednesday, October 1, 2003
Shoe day? Tomorrow would be about the logical last day for the Los Angeles Times to drop its bomb on Arnold Schwarzenegger. If editor John Carroll waits any longer it will look like a late hit designed to stampede the electorate."
Actually, it was a perfectly-timed late hit, guaranteed to dominate the weekend news, as it has.
And, as I noted, it was deliciously one-sided. I said:
"A good paper of record - one that took it's responsibilities seriously - would have laid out both issues, talked about what each means in the context of governance, and trusted us - the public - to use that information to make up our minds.
But we're talking about the L.A. Times. And in taking this kind of blatantly partisan stance, it continues to weaken it's role as a reliable source for information."
And as I thought about it over the weekend, I realized that to me, the greatest danger is the ossification of the political process; it's the way groups like moveon.org - which started as a 'non-partisan' effort to damp the stupidly partisan impeachment effort, has become another string in the Democratic violin.
Somehow the gravitational field is such that as you become closer and closer to the center of power, you get pulled into a one of two rigid orbits; that's an international issue (yes I know about multiparty coalitions and parliaments), not just a California or US of A one, and it's incredibly destructive.
It's destructive because it is flexibility, and the willingness to adapt to facts that make our Western liberalism powerful. And that becomes almost impossible to do in this kind of environment. Facts and language themselves seem to become plastic and run like Dali watches.
We've got to do something about it.
Electing Arnold won't be the powerful statement that I hoped it might be, and I doubt that he'll be the governor that I hoped he might become.
But...
Electing him will be a slap to the face of the political class, which it badly needs.
So at the end of all this, and for what little it's worth, I'm endorsing him. My fingers are crossed, but I'm secretly pleased to imagine the fury of the editorial board of the LAT.
I think Arnold will win big (in part because I think his support tends to underpoll as people are abashed to admit they're voting for him), and if so, I think the Times will have played a significant if inadvertent part in his victory.
It's a brick pulled out of the wall.
Davis' true nature has shown through in the recall. By pandering to certain groups, he has screwed the state over in many more ways than he probably would have done absent the recall. Not to mention that he never understood the nature of the recall itself. He is treating it as if he is running against other people rather than his own record.
Also, the true nature of much of the legislators in Sacramento has been highlighted. I think those that have provided much of what Davis has signed the past several weeks need to have their name published so voters will be informed come the next election. The legislature bears a huge burden, of which Davis is the visible symbol.
At this point, looking at what Davis has signed the past month, the recall question is easy for me. Pack it up Davis. But who to vote for as replacement? I have images of another Jesse Ventura-like term if Arnold gets in (and I'm not impressed with the high profilers that signed on to help). Cruz... well, since I can't say anything good about him I won't say anything. I was considering McClintock despite disagreeing with him on many things, but his politicking this last week has left a bitter taste in my mouth.
First the Wellstone funeral in Minnesota (direct result = Jewish Republican Senator), now this. Is the Democratic establishment taking political lessons from Hamas, or what's the deal?
(from a recent email I sent to a friend)
The press wanted it's Vietnam, desparately. It got it. But not how it expected. It's not the US Army in the quagmire, it's the mainstream media. Attacked from the bushes by cong-like Internet watchdogs, calling them to account for EVERY mistake, filling in the context, history, and conveinently missing facts to their stories, their markets are being undermined, while the overwhelming number of it's high level editors and managers, having had their world formed between 1965 and 1975, are convinced that those times were the norm, and that opposing the US government is not just the work of the angels, but great fun besides. Problem is, we are now at war with genuine, stone fascists, who want us dead, and which Saddam Hussein was one of, and the American people know it.
And now, when they turn their big guns on someone like Arnold, or Bush over the CIA, they are finding the masses are not questioning Arnold or Bush, they are questioning the media. What's YOUR agenda? Who's watching YOU guys? You were wrong yesterday and the day before, why should I believe you now? Why is YOUR obvious agenda and ideology the slightest bit more pure and good than the President's or anyone else's? And just who here is more guilty of a profound lack of seriousness and maturity in approaching life-or-death issues of the world today?
THAT is the biggest story of the day. The fact that the media is approaching a period of discreditation not unlike the US government and military faced in the seventies. Time for some SERIOUS re-trenchement and soul-searching, boys. It'll be good for you. Painful, but good.
Andrew X: well put.
lol that makes three people (including myself) I know who voted for Arnold namely because for one reason:
to say "f u" to the la times