This one's a little late getting up, but better late than never.
Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman for Newsweek.
It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.
Here is the text of the full article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/977064.asp
Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman Newsweek
Tuesday 07 October 2003
Voter alienation will not stop at voting booths in California
It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
There are a lot of reasons. Starting with the winning candidate, here are some:
Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Grope-a-Dope" strategy-the modern version of what they used to call in the Nixon days a "modified limited hangout"-will cause him nothing but problems. Swamped by allegations of sexual misconduct, his fateful answer was to promise a full accounting after Election Day. Now that he's won, his first task won't be to put together his administration but to spell out of the rest of his story. I assumed that he was winging it when he told Tom Brokaw on NBC that he would do that. Turns out, this was a deliberate and considered response. His team, its leaders say, simply did not have the time and resources to go into the details during the campaign. He'll have to do so in Sacramento. This at the same time he will have to put together a new administration with none of the usual "transition" time.
The Budget California's economy is a mess, and the state's budget is, on an annual basis, at least $10 billion in the red. No matter who takes charge in Sacramento, the same gridlock will remain: The Republicans in the legislature are dead-set against raising taxes; the Democrats, who control the place, won't vote for any. If Arnold won, I was told before the vote, the Democrats would gladly accept Schwarzenegger's likely offer to enter into sweeping negotiations. Why? Because they hope to lure Gov. Terminator into agreeing to a tax hike - thus busting up the highly fragile GOP coalition that got him elected.
Recalls Forever Once having started down the recall road, this state can't turn back. The Democratic recall campaign against Schwarzenegger could begin immediately. Choose your excuse. If he fails to give the full accounting he promised of his sexual conduct, that could be one reason. If he fails to craft a budget deal, or he advocates massive cuts in social programs (which he would have to do if there is no tax increase) would be another. "The rules of politics and government here have changed, probably forever," Democratic strategist Bill Carrick told me. "This is the way it's going to be."'
California GOP Division One of Schwarzenegger's toughest tasks will be to make peace with is own party. Social conservatives, in California and elsewhere, were disgusted by the litany of stories about Schwarzenegger's personal behavior. If he moves his lips on taxes, they will be his mortal enemy.
Democratic Second-Guessing The anger of Democrats at Davis is real. They are furious with him for having underestimated voter dismay at the state of the local economy; at the severity of the energy crisis; at the potency of the recall movement. Schwarzenegger's win means the bloodletting will be ugly. "If we lose, there will be three reasons," one prominent Democratic contributor told me here before the vote. "Davis, Davis and Davis." Beyond that, Democrats were expressing their anger at Davis and his allies (notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown). In their view, they should have engineered another, stronger, Democratic alternative on the ballot to Davis and Bustamante. Their view (and it may be wishful thinking) is that someone like Feinstein could have saved the day.
National Republican Division The big parlor game here before Election Day was arguing about whether George Bush's GOP would welcome a victorious Schwarzenegger into the heart of the party. The quick-response answer is yes: The Republicans haven't controlled (if that's the word) the governorship of the largest state since 1998. But depending on what Arnold has to say- in detail-about his past, the Bible Belt conservatives who form the heart of the modern GOP might balk at embracing the Terminator at the New York convention.
Protest Politics The Schwarzenegger win would seem to be a blessing to the GOP, and to Bush. If nothing else, it would spread the Democratic defense in the Electoral College, forcing them next year to spend time and money defending a state-California-that they have come to take for granted in recent presidential elections.
But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.
Davis was under assault because he seemed oblivious to the concerns of Californians. Given his poll ratings on the economy and, now Iraq, Bush runs the increasing risk of being viewed by the American people as just another deaf politico. Until recently, the president's greatest asset was the sense that he was a decent guy, with good values, who wanted to do the right thing. But the questions that have been raised about the rationale for going to war in Iraq have had a corrosive effect on the sense of trust he evoked in most voters.
I know Bush (and Davis). Bush is no Davis. He is as personable as Davis is colorless. But the same rule applies: If voters think you aren't listening to them, they have a way of getting your attention at the next available election.
This just in from Brad Templeton.
Man does John Perry have a way with words.
If someone like Karl Rove had wanted to neutralize the most creative, intelligent, and passionate members of his opposition, he'd have a hard time coming up with a better tool than Burning Man. Exile them to the wilderness, give them a culture in which alpha status requires months of focus and resource-consumptive preparation, provide them with metric tons of psychotropic confusicants, and then... ignore them. It's a pretty safe bet that they won't be out registering voters, or doing anything that might actually threaten electoral change, when they have an art car to build...Hey, maybe he'll turn out to be a terrific Governor. Weirder things have happened, and lately in abundance. Maybe he will demonstrate such administrative genius that he will surgically remove 9 billion dollars of fatty deposits from California's budget without devastating public services. Maybe he will get the state back on track without either raising taxes or holding Enron accountable for the billions they swindled from his state.
But I kind of doubt it. This is a man who wanted to be adored just like Hitler, as he himself put it. This is a man whose record of boorish sexual impositions would bar him from employment in any Fortune 500 company. Not only is he macho, he *is* macho. He is arrogant, distorted, and possibly the most narcissistic person in Hollywood. (Which would make him, I guess, just about the most narcissistic person in the Milky Way galaxy.) His primary assets are good bones, great teeth, killer name recognition, and a wife whose loyalty exceeds even Hillary Clinton's. Yet the people of California turned out in record numbers a couple of Tuesdays ago and gave him everything but a blowjob.
Here is the full text of the email:
---------> B a R L o W F R i e N D Z ----->
I do try to keep this list to actual friends - by that I mean folks who might bail me out of jail. Some of what I report here is too personal to be of general interest. Nevertheless, please feel free to post or forward anything you think merits wider distribution. Finally, if this broadcast feels impersonal, I hope you will remember that individual responses generally elicit personal replies. And even if I'm sometimes too swamped to write back, I delight in hearing from you.> SURREALITY TV: FROM BURNING MAN TO RUNNING MAN I repeat. Governor Schwartzenegger. That's right. Say it aloud several times. Who needs drugs to feel like they're hallucinating? But I get ahead of myself. Let me back up to my last communiqué, dispatched as I was heading off to Burning Man, muttering darkly about taking Serious Measures to Reorganize my Strategy, implying that I would return from Black Rock City with a clarified sense of direction and purpose. Well, I did. Sort of. It is true that Burning Man provided me some chewy food for thought. I found myself fundamentally questioning the Bohemianism to which I have been firmly committed since I reacted to turning 14 in a hick Wyoming town by buying a motorcycle, leading my Mormon Boy Scout troop into depravity, reading "On the Road," and learning how to smirk like James Dean. Since then, I've been, without apology, a biker, a beatnik, a hippie, a cyberpunk, a burner, and a 40 year thorn in the side of Authority. That I was also a Republican during much of that time owed more to a desire to be a politically effective libertarian and environmentalist in a one-party state than any personal resonance with the God-as-Abusive-Father side of the American cultural canyon. I've marched against 4 wars (three hot, one cold), defended wild nature in both ecology and human affairs, and ingested practically every known substance even suspected to induce mysticism. In the service of liberty, I've worn fashions that would embarrass Elton John. I've championed the strangest in their right to be odd and endeavored to make of myself a general zone of amnesty. I have been (and remain) pro-choice in all regards. For many years, my car wore a bumper sticker that proclaimed, "It's Still Not Weird Enough For Me." I meant it. But lately, as I've said, it's been plenty weird enough for me and Burning Man weirded me further out. While this year's burn was as fecund as ever in random acts of genius, terrifying beauties, and carelessly open hearts, I found myself shaking my head almost as often as I would at a White House prayer breakfast. I felt as if I were watching the best minds of the next several generations blowing themselves into starry oblivions as deep as the desert night, pushing the envelope of strangeness into near-psychosis at a time when the world beyond The Playa seems to have gone quite mad enough already. If someone like Karl Rove had wanted to neutralize the most creative, intelligent, and passionate members of his opposition, he'd have a hard time coming up with a better tool than Burning Man. Exile them to the wilderness, give them a culture in which alpha status requires months of focus and resource-consumptive preparation, provide them with metric tons of psychotropic confusicants, and then... ignore them. It's a pretty safe bet that they won't be out registering voters, or doing anything that might actually threaten electoral change, when they have an art car to build. Indeed, Burning Man strikes me as only one of many reality distortion fields within which the counter-culture, myself totally included, has sought self-ghettoizing refuge. On reflection, I realized that I felt much the same about the massive protest marches that failed to impede in any way the Administration's unprovoked assault on Iraq. We all had a grand time gathering ourselves by the millions, but we were up against opponents far more practical and smart than Dick Nixon or Spiro Agnew. The current Dick knows that the best way to deal with dissent is give it a spectacle to exhaust its energies on. He knows that we're suckers for a good show, especially one where we get a starring role, so he gives us unmolested stages upon which to mount our extravaganzas and goes on about his corporate affairs. Also, as I watched the enormously inventive and sweet-hearted burners duct-taping together their creations, I felt a sinking sense of ineffectiveness. We're up against an opposition that can get their machines to fly twice the speed of sound and do so reliably. Granted they do stupid and terrible things with those machines, but at least they get them to work. And yes, ours would probably work too with that kind of funding, but with our disdain for both wealth and the tedious processes of democracy, we have conceded those resources to the thin-lipped monotheists. Of course, my pal and Mondo 2000 editor R.U. Sirius made a solid point when he said, "It stands to reason that self-righteous, inflexible, single-minded, authoritarian true believers are politically organized. Open-minded, flexible, complex, ambiguous, anti-authoritarian people would just as soon be left to mind their own fucking business." You bet we would, but can we afford to any longer? And, if not, how can we shake off the confusion, poverty, disarray, willed hallucination, paralysis, denial, and cultural isolation we've created over the last half century and run these overgrown hall monitors and out of office? While I was having these meditations at Burning Man, I was still thinking that the answer was simply getting a genuinely representative sample of the populace to vote. I retained enough faith in The Wisdom of The People that I assumed that if the real electorate turned out - and not just the 29% who bothered with the last national elections - we would see a government with real American values: one that valued individual liberty, fiscal restraint, and a profound wariness of foreign military adventures. (Actually, I remember a time when it was thought these were Republican values as well, but maybe I was kidding myself, as we old hippies often do.) In any event, my childlike faith in democracy was seriously challenged when California voters turned out in record numbers and elected an action figure as their new leader. What were they thinking? I mean, I've met Governor Schwartzenegger - that's right, Governor Schwartzenegger - and, while he's smarter and funnier than he seems on television, there is absolutely nothing in his experience or temperament that would qualify him to manage the world's sixth largest economy. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Ventura, to whom he's compared, both had plenty of political and managerial experience when they entered office. They arrived with detailed programs for what they wanted to accomplish and they were paragons of balance and humility compared with the Governorator. I mean, seriously folks, this is a man who owns 9 Humvees and thinks he's an environmentalist. Hey, maybe he'll turn out to be a terrific Governor. Weirder things have happened, and lately in abundance. Maybe he will demonstrate such administrative genius that he will surgically remove 9 billion dollars of fatty deposits from California's budget without devastating public services. Maybe he will get the state back on track without either raising taxes or holding Enron accountable for the billions they swindled from his state. But I kind of doubt it. This is a man who wanted to be adored just like Hitler, as he himself put it. This is a man whose record of boorish sexual impositions would bar him from employment in any Fortune 500 company. Not only is he macho, he *is* macho. He is arrogant, distorted, and possibly the most narcissistic person in Hollywood. (Which would make him, I guess, just about the most narcissistic person in the Milky Way galaxy.) His primary assets are good bones, great teeth, killer name recognition, and a wife whose loyalty exceeds even Hillary Clinton's. Yet the people of California turned out in record numbers a couple of Tuesdays ago and gave him everything but a blowjob. Why? I don't know. I suspect they landslid him into Sacramento for the sheer hell of it, for the spectacle, for sport, and because they fancy he will be a lot more entertaining on the evening news than Gray Davis ever was. It's all just television, anyway. It's Joe Millionaire, but with flags. And Kennedys. Choosing a governor this way makes as much sense as looking for your next girlfriend on men's room walls. "For a good time, vote for Arnold..." This event demonstrates that it's going to take more than just getting out the vote to restore common sense to the American political process. When the voters start hallucinating, democracy fails. You end up with junk politics, as the current issue of Harper's puts it. Twinkie democracy. It now seems incumbent on those of us who have been hallucinating intentionally to throttle it back a bit and get our shit together. It's time for the experientialists - those of us who don't get our reality from television, who actually read about what what we can't experience directly - to emerge from our psychic sanctuaries and become seriously involved in the ugly business of politics. If we don't, it's only a matter of time before the dominant culture quits ignoring us and starts actively locking us up in even greater numbers. Indeed, the means to accomplish this are already in place, as I can personally assure you. (More of this as soon as I'm legally free to discuss it...) Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have not become anti-Burning Man. It will probably remain on my liturgical calendar next year, as will a few other counter-cultural hoedowns. As I've said before, I'm with Emma Goldman who said, "If I can't dance, I want no part of your revolution." But while I believe that dancing is a revolutionary act, it is clear to me that we can't simply dance this darkness out of office. Nor have I decided to turn straight. I've turned straighter, but I expect I'm as wedded to my cultural principles and practices as Pat Robertson is to his. Still, this is a critical moment in history. If we beleaguered bohemians really care about the moments to come that our children will inhabit, we'd better show up for it. This means that, painful as it sounds, we're probably going to have to act like grown-ups some of the time until things quit being so weird. If the world isn't going to make sense, we'd better. Or at least that's what I've been telling myself lately. I have more to say about the personal dimensions all these considerations. And will. But this much has been moldering on my hard disk since the California election, so out it goes. Love and fishes, Barlow P.S. Please note my current .sig quote from George I's memoirs. If only children would listen to their parents, the world would be a better place. Home(stead) Page: http://www.eff.org/~barlow Call me anywhere, anytime: 800/654-4322 Fax me anywhere, anytime: 603/215-1529 Current Cell Phone: 917/963-2037 (AT&T) Alternative Cell Phone: 646/286-8176 (GSM) ************************************************************** Barlow in Meatspace Now: Naples, Florida (Until 10/21) (Projected) Trajectory from here: Salt Lake City, Utah (10/22-25) -> Steamboat Springs, Colorado ((10/24-26) -> Loveland, Colorado (10/26-29) -> Salt Lake City (10/29-30) -> Las Vegas (10/30-11/1) -> Chicago (11/1-11/4) -> Salt Lake City... ************************************************************** Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. -- George Herbert Walker Bush, from his memoir, "A World Transformed" (1998) _______________________________________________
------------------------------> -------------------> -------->
Governor Schwartzenegger.
--
John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
Co-Founder & Vice Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Berkman Fellow, Harvard Law School
BarlowFriendz mailing list
BarlowFriendz@eff.org
https://owl.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/barlowfriendz
This is incredible. The Shrub didn't tell Arnie anything important because, heck, Arnie didn't ask :-)
Only in Californi-ay. Only in the U.S. of A.
This is from the October 20, 2003 program.
Arnie and The Shrub: Twins (Small - 8 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Why is Arnie so sad about it? The salary he'll be making, and that he has to move to Sacramento :-)
This is from the October 8, 2003 program.
Steve Carell On Arnie's Sad Win (Small - 7 MB)
The Daily Show. (The best news on television.)
This is from the October 8, 2003 program.
More From The Daily Show On Arnie's Governorship Celebration Party (Small - 4 MB)
The Daily Show. (The best news on television.)
Well guys, we tried hard, but we were outnumbered by the sheep.
However, it's not over. If I understand correctly from the little birdies I know, the next step is Recalling Arnold. People will start collecting signatures soon so keep an eye out.
This isn't over yet. We won't just hand our state's future over without a fight.
It may seem a little silly to go around and around like this, but they started it.
In the mean time, try to keep your spirits up. At least Prop 54 didn't pass!
I've got to go to a meeting this morning at my local elementary school, where I'll be starting soon as an SF School Volunteer (more on this later). Then I'll be back to upload some more new music to help get our minds off of this negative stuff.
Peace,
lisa
Wish I'd had a chance to put this up over the weekend, but I just got back into town late tonight.
A friend of mine and I were discussing the idea of creating a "groping index" of sorts that might be useful to help keep track of the 16 sexual harassment complaints about Arnie that have come in so far -- and the rest that are likely to start pouring in over the next few weeks.
Little did we know that Jon Stewart had already begun just such an index last Thursday night!
This is from the October 2, 2003 program.
Jon will be providing live results from the election tonight! Don't Miss it!
Arnie's Groping Confession and Helpful Score Card (Including Bizarre Vagina Requests) (Small - 4 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Doug McGuire is a consultant, entrepreneur, and self-proclaimed "writer wannabe" who has taken the time to put the following essay together about Arnold Schwarzenegger, which he has entitled "The Groping Narcissist."
McGuire's done a fair amount of research on this article, and I felt it was worthy of bringing it to your attention before the vote tomorrow.
The transcripts included were borrowed from www.burrelles.com.
The full text is available below. It's not available online - he just sent me a DOC file in an Email. Doug can be reached at Damac57@cs.com.
But does Arnold have the politically savvy to win in California? Oprah’s interview with Arnold was revealing in another way. Demonstrating an innate knack for politics, Arnold was insistent that it was OK to lie to the public, in order to sway their opinion. Like a drum beat he said this over and over.Oprah: Something you did in 1977, 26 years ago, comes out about Oui
magazine where you were talking about having smoked pot and inhaling and described wild sexual experiences in detail 26 years ago. Now did you remember that interview?Arnold: We…said the most outrageous things that you can say in order to make
headlines and to be out there… [makes his point once…smiling]Oprah: Were you making some of that stuff up?
Arnold: …the idea was to say things…over the top so you get headlines [makes
it again…laughing]Oprah: Yeah
Arnold: [he’s on a roll now…he’s grinning…really full of himself] …we were
really out there doing, you know, Andy Warhol, and this whole thing—and so we were trying to get attention. So this were intent—attention—grabbers, those—those kind of lines.Finally, just to make sure Oprah understood his point that it is OK to lie to the public, as if he was emphasizing how important such a skill would be in politics, he said it again, seriously:
Arnold: But I mean, this was all outrageous statements in order for people to
say, ‘Oh my God, I got to try that’Say things that are “over the top.” “Make headlines.” “Be out there.” Use “attention grabbers.” I get it. This is how you would develop campaign sound bites. One-liners. Slogans. Outrageous comments are fair game. Let’s see what outrageous, over the top, attention-grabbing, lies he is telling today in order to get headlines:
“I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women. A champion for the women.” “I’m very pro-women. I’m very much into equality.”
“Hasta la vista, car tax.” "I can kill the tax with my signature alone, and I will do exactly that."
“Game over” “I’ll be back”
The Groping Narcissist
Remember Narcissus from Greek mythology? He was the handsome fellow who fell in love with himself after discovering his own reflection in a pool of water. Narcissus died when he couldn’t fulfill the love. Michael Maccoby, an anthropologist and psychoanalyst reminded us in his January-February 2000 Harvard Business Review article that it was Freud who dubbed a certain personality type as Narcissistic, borrowing from the ancient myth.
Maccoby segues from the “pathological preoccupation” with his own body that doomed Narcissus, and uses Freud’s personality type to analyze modern leaders. He says that narcissism can be both productive and non-productive. The non-productive is interesting in today’s context. Maccoby goes beyond the simple self-love and admiration of Narcissus, and describes today’s non-productive narcissist in Freudian thought: “relentless and ruthless in their pursuit of victory” “not restrained by conscience” “achievements can feed feelings of grandiosity” “a tendency toward grandiosity” “they nurture grand schemes” “lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers.”
What career path would a non-productive narcissist follow, you might wonder? How does a genuine narcissist derive the most fulfillment? A body-builder, perhaps. In that pursuit, like Narcissus, one could spend all hours of the day gazing at floor-to-ceiling mirrors, admiring his own reflection. Approving followers could enjoy his handsome physique, too. The non-productive narcissist, “relentless and ruthless in pursuit of victory,” might even win seven Mr. Universe titles.
Conquering that world, or should I say ‘Universe”, and “with a tendency toward grandiosity,” perhaps he would become an actor, a leading man, so he could always be on stage. Here again the narcissist gains the unambiguous indulgence and adoration of admiring fans. People would cheer him in the streets.
But that would run its course too, because acting is really a fantasy and not so much a “grand scheme”. To feed his feelings of grandiosity, the non-productive narcissist would need more than just devoted followers. He needs everyone to depend on him. He will save everyone, thus earning their love and devotion, their adulation. He needs to run California. Yeah, that should do it.
The following dialogue is clipped from Burrelle’s transcripts at www.burrelles.com. It is part of the text of the recent Oprah Winfrey Show when Oprah interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the interview, Schwarzenegger described his career path to Oprah. They discussed how much Arnold enjoyed the recall campaign and why he decided to go for it. Bear in mind that Arnold couldn’t very well say that his past “achievements” were beginning to “feed feelings of grandiosity” and that he had begun to “nurture grand schemes” and that “lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors” he had become an “unrealistic dreamer.” So he just said he wanted to try something new.
Oprah: Are you liking it, Arnold, though? You’re liking it?
Arnold: I love it.
Oprah: You love it.
Arnold: I-I absolutely love it.
Oprah: Because you love a challenge. Yeah.
Arnold: You have to understand—no, but, you know, remember when— when—when we met I was just getting out of body-building and…
Oprah: Yeah.
Arnold: …and I was just getting—this was the late 70s…
Oprah: Yeah
Arnold: …and you asking me the same question, you said to me, when we were
driving around in Baltimore, you said, you know, ‘How is it now, getting into the acting?’ And I—I said to you, ‘I’m excited about doing something new. I’ve done the body building now, the competition, the training every day, five hours. I want to learn something new. I want to get into show business and work my way up in show business, and be a leading man and all this.’ And you said, ‘Wow, yeah, if this will happen.’
Oprah: See, I didn’t believe you then, but I believe you now. I believe you
now.
Arnold: But the same is—but the same is now Oprah. It’s the same thing, It’s
a new thing.
So, a possible career path for the non-productive narcissist is from body-builder, where awards are given with grandiose sounding titles like Mr. Universe, to ‘leading man’ where he can appear on a larger stage, where superficial imagery reaches even more people. Finally, by moving into politics, the non-productive narcissist might even become a real-life hero, proving that his past achievements were no fantasies at all. Mr. Universe, Terminator, Governor Schwarzenegger. Ah.
But does Arnold have the politically savvy to win in California? Oprah’s interview with Arnold was revealing in another way. Demonstrating an innate knack for politics, Arnold was insistent that it was OK to lie to the public, in order to sway their opinion. Like a drum beat he said this over and over.
Oprah: Something you did in 1977, 26 years ago, comes out about Oui
magazine where you were talking about having smoked pot and inhaling and described wild sexual experiences in detail 26 years ago. Now did you remember that interview?
Arnold: We…said the most outrageous things that you can say in order to make
headlines and to be out there… [makes his point once…smiling]
Oprah: Were you making some of that stuff up?
Arnold: …the idea was to say things…over the top so you get headlines [makes
it again…laughing]
Oprah: Yeah
Arnold: [he’s on a roll now…he’s grinning…really full of himself] …we were
really out there doing, you know, Andy Warhol, and this whole thing—and so we were trying to get attention. So this were intent—attention—grabbers, those—those kind of lines.
Finally, just to make sure Oprah understood his point that it is OK to lie to the public, as if he was emphasizing how important such a skill would be in politics, he said it again, seriously:
Arnold: But I mean, this was all outrageous statements in order for people to
say, ‘Oh my God, I got to try that’
Say things that are “over the top.” “Make headlines.” “Be out there.” Use “attention grabbers.” I get it. This is how you would develop campaign sound bites. One-liners. Slogans. Outrageous comments are fair game. Let’s see what outrageous, over the top, attention-grabbing, lies he is telling today in order to get headlines:
“I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women. A champion for the women.” “I’m very pro-women. I’m very much into equality.”
“Hasta la vista, car tax.” "I can kill the tax with my signature alone, and I will do exactly that."
“Game over” “I’ll be back”
Never mind that killing the car tax will increase the California budget deficit by more than four billion dollars.
I see it now -- go into politics – get the public’s attention -- lie to them -- sway their opinion -- and so on. Makes sense. But how do you explain it if someone catches you on the lies? Here again we see Arnold’s simple brilliance:
Oprah: When you decided to run for governor, you must have known
everything you’ve ever done is now going to come to the forefront.
Arnold: See, so, but it—and the—and at the time, I did not—I did not think that
I’m going to run for governor either.
Oprah: Yeah.
Arnold: So, of course, you know, I was saying those things and I was over the
top in order to….
Oprah: Because you would have cleaned it up.
Arnold: Hey, believe me.
Oprah: Yeah.
Another part of Arnold’s interview was a shocker. Remember, this is the Oprah Winfrey Show. A hundred times during each show, the camera flashes to the smiling faces of the soccer moms in the audience, the suburban Chicago women, and the progressive gals who visit the Oprah show for its positive message. More importantly, sitting next to Arnold is his wife, Maria. The reaction by Maria and Oprah indicates they were stunned by Arnold’s crude and unnecessary remark. It shouldn’t be a surprise, however, because narcissists also tend to be insensitive oafs:
Oprah: Do you remember the parties, Arnold?
Arnold: I really don’t. No, but, I mean, you know, these were the times where I
was saying things, like, you know, ‘a pump is better than cumming,’ and all those kinds of things. Yeah.
There was both embarrassed laughter and sounds of stunned disbelief. Maria’s and Oprah’s eyes were wide open and their jaws dropped. They were laughing, but it was nervous, embarrassed laughter. Especially for Maria. Arnold continued talking over the din of the audience, and the interruptions by Maria. Maria even covered Arnold’s mouth with her hand. Yes, she reached up on national television and put her hand over his mouth, so stunned was she by his insensitivity. But Arnold just pulled away from her hand and kept on talking:
Arnold: No, no, but, I mean—but, like, you know, today…
Maria: Wait a minute. Why did you do that? I said my mother
is watching this show. My mother is watching this show.
Arnold: I know. I un—I understand. I understand. I understand. OK.
Maria: I mean, my God. Now…
Arnold: Wherever—wherever Eunice is, don’t pay any attention. OK. But
I mean, but the point…
I think Maria next tried to help Arnold, to lead him out of the dog pile, but he really didn’t listen to her. That’s another trait of the narcissist. They don’t listen to others.
Maria: Right. That’s the stuff you used to say.
Arnold: No, no. That’s what I’m saying. But the point of it…the—the—the--is
Maria: OK.
Oprah: Let him say…
Arnold: Thank you.
Maria: But I don’t want to let him say anything. Oh.
Arnold: You see, now…
Oprah: Go ahead, Arnold. Finish.
Arnold: No, no. But now…
Oprah: Now?
Arnold: ….now you know what I go through at home, OK? So gives you a
little taste.
Oprah: Yeah
Now, when Arnold made the wisecrack about his life at home with Maria, it was a joke, right? Or, was Arnold really “kidding on the square”? Either way, it’s obvious now how much Arnold respects women. They aren’t just for groping whenever you have the urge. They’re are worth putting up with, even if it gets a little tough at home.
But wait. Is that really it? When Arnold says he’s a champion of the women, and that he believes in equality for women, is he really just saying outrageous, attention-grabber headlines, to sway public opinion? To get people to say “Oh, my God. I’ve got to vote for this guy?”
In August, a study surfaced by James Houran, a psychology professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, about Celebrity Worship Syndrome, an affliction that affects as much as one third of the population. People with CWS are overly susceptible to real-life influence by their fantasy idol. At one extreme, those with CWS will go so far as to commit a crime if asked by an idol to do so; Hitler’s followers, for example. At the milder end of the scale, a CWS sufferer will do less harmful things, like believe every word their idol says. Or, if their idol is a murderer, even though most CWS sufferers would never kill anyone, they might cheer while a white Bronco carries their idol-murderer down the highway. Or, if their idol is a pro-athlete accused of rape, they might stand and cheer him on when he enters a courtroom. Will CWS sufferers vote for their idol, the happy narcissist? That’s a slam-dunk.
Idolatry. Hero worship. Isn’t this what Arnold is all about? He keeps weaving his old movie lines into his campaign slogans as if he is aware that he needs the CWS vote. During a recent political debate, he even told Arriana he had a role for her in Terminator 4. He doesn’t seem to want to leave his movie star roots behind. He needs votes from his CWS-suffering followers, the one third who will vote for him because he is a movie star -- part of their fantasy – who don’t really care if he is a rake, much less if he has the political skills to run the state with the sixth largest economy in the world. Arnold needs the CWS vote because he doesn’t have a political base. But even more than politics, he really needs the CWS vote to fulfill his more than ample self-love and admiration, to feed his grandiose and narcissistic schemes, and to convert his fantasy-world heroism to real-life heroism.
On the subject of groping and being “not restrained by conscience,” Arnold’s recent admissions that he fondled women on “rowdy movie sets” and other places, accusations that span from the 1970s to the year 2000, and for which he has summarily apologized, perhaps should be overlooked. Maybe we shouldn’t hold him accountable for that “bad behavior,” because, well, as he put it:
“See, so, but it—and the—and at the time, I did not—I did not think that I’m going to run for governor either.”
Yeah.
Here's a message from MoveOn about why it's sooooo important for you to vote tomorrow in the California Recall Election.
I've rearranged them a bit because I still believe that Arnold's connection to the energy crooks (here's Greg Palast's Info on this issue) is the most important reason to not trust this guy as governor.
Dear Friend,
Please forward this email to anyone you think should read it -- this is once again a very close race and tomorrow every single vote will count. Also keep in mind that many usual polling places will be closed this election. You can click here to look up your polling place. And forward this to your friends so they can look up their polling places as well.
Seven Reasons Why You Absolutely, Positively MUST Vote on Oct. 7:Ed note: I'm putting #7 first because I still feel it's most important:
7. Because Schwarzenegger STILL hasn't explained why he met with Enron's Kenneth Lay at the height of the energy crisis. Schwarzenegger attended a meeting of top business leaders and Republican politicians on May 17, 2001 that was apparently held to thwart a Davis-Bustamante plan to recover $9 billion from energy companies. He still hasn't explained why he was there or whether his candidacy for Governor was discussed at that meeting. And he's refusing to talk to reporters in these last days of the campaign. (San Mateo Times, FTCR)
1. Your vote matters. If you don't vote, Schwarzenegger becomes your governor. It's that simple. A poll conducted Wednesday through Saturday showed support for the recall and Schwarzenegger dropping fast. This election could be decided by a very small number of votes. We can win this, but your vote is absolutely necessary. (
The Mercury News)2. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Pete Wilson sequel. Governor Pete Wilson grew state spending much faster than Gray Davis ever has. Worse, he championed energy deregulation and in 1996 signed the bill that deregulated energy in California. Wilson opened the gates to let his energy pals rob the state blind. And now he and his former team are running Schwarzenegger's campaign and choosing his policies. Even more troubling: Schwarzenegger seems to be in bed with the same energy interests as Wilson (See #7). We want to see Terminator 4, not Wilson 2. (Horowitz, Conason)
3. We have no idea what Schwarzenegger is going to do with California, and neither does he. He doesn't have a plan to balance the budget. He hasn't said what cuts he'll make or what taxes he'll raise. California needs a real leader, not someone who plays one in the movies. You may be frustrated with the way things are now -- but if Schwarzenegger had a plan to make them better, don't you think he would have told us about it?
4. He lied about taking money from special interests. The night he announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show he told us, "As you know, I don't need to take money from anyone. I have plenty of money myself." He then turned right around and accepted over $10 million not from "special" interests, but rather, as he explained it, "business and individuals, absolutely. They're powerful interests who control things." (Saramento Bee,
CNN)5. Arnold Schwarzenegger might belong on the sex offender registry, but not in the governor's mansion. So far 15 credible women have come forward with stories of being physically assaulted by this man -- some only a few years ago. He has not denied some of the stories (in fact, he said "where there's smoke, there's fire"). He has tried to chalk his mistakes up to "rowdiness." But these incidents constitute a string of crimes that would land anyone except a multi-millionaire actor in jail and on the sex offender registry. (Los Angeles Times, Newsday)
6. The Nazi stuff is serious. Who care's how long ago it was that Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he wanted to have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium, and have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say." That's scary! And now nuns are being roughed up at Schwarzenegger rallies. A film maker who worked closely with Schwarzenegger in the 70's says he saw him playing, "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home." At his 1988 wedding Schwarzenegger toasted a confirmed Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, saying "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt." Where there's smoke, there's fire! (New York Times, Slate, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times)
Thank you,-- Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
October 6th, 2003
Reminder: NO on the Recall. Yes on Cruz Bustamante. (No on Prop 54.)
As I suspected, this Recall is more about trying to quash a lawsuit against the crooks that took the people of California for 9 Billion dollars than anything else.
Greg Palast has done his homework again. Read on.
Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected
By Greg Palast.
It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal...It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.
It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger...
But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).
So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=283
Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected
Friday, October 3, 2003
It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal.
The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.
It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.
Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.
How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.
While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay.
But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).
So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.
Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the Governor of California won't play along. Solution: Re-call the Governor.
New Problem: the guy most likely to replace Davis is not Mr. Musclehead, but Cruz Bustamante, even a bigger threat to the power companies than Davis. Solution: smear Cruz because -- heaven forbid! -- he took donations from Injuns (instead of Ken Lay).
The pay-off? Once Arnold is Governor, he blesses the sweetheart settlements with the power companies. When that happens, Bustamante's court cases are probably lost. There aren't many judges who will let a case go to trial to protect a state if that a governor has already allowed the matter to be "settled" by a regulatory agency.
So think about this. The state of California is in the hole by $8 billion for the coming year. That's chump change next to the $8 TRILLION in deficits and surplus losses planned and incurred by George Bush. Nevertheless, the $8 billion deficit is the hanging rope California's right wing is using to lynch Governor Davis.
Yet only Davis and Bustamante are taking direct against to get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of the state by Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Company and the other Texas bandits who squeezed the state by the bulbs.
But if Arnold is selected, it's 'hasta la vista' to the $9 billion. When the electricity emperors whistle, Arnold comes -- to the Peninsula Hotel or the Governor's mansion. The he-man turns pussycat and curls up in their lap.
I asked Mr. Muscle's PR people to comment on the new Enron memos -- and his strange silence on Bustamante's suit or Davis' petition. But Arnold was too busy shaving off his Hitlerian mustache to respond.
The Enron memos were discovered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles,
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
I've always been against the Recall -- I'm shocked and dismayed that we're wasting so much of our valuable time and resources when we have so little of either. It's really important for you to get out and vote this Tuesday!
I've been toying with the idea of trying to organize some kind of exit polls the night of the election. I know a lot of us have to work that day (those of us lucky enough to have jobs), but what if we all spent even just that last hour between 7 and 8 pm asking people how they voted on the way out of the polling place? I'd be happy to coordinate the results by hand if necessary.
Would anyone be willing to work on this with me? Email me at lisarein@finetuning.com if you would.
Thanks!
This came in yesterday from MoveOn.org:
***In front of a national audience last night, Arianna Huffington outlined the dramatically simple reality facing Californians: if you don't vote against the recall, Arnold Schwarzenegger will become governor. Today we're passing along a letter from her explaining why she dropped out of the race and is working to defeat the recall. Please get the word out that a vote for the recall is a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger: FORWARD THIS EMAIL to friends, coworkers and family.Dear Friend,
Last night I withdrew my candidacy from the recall race and today I am writing to sound an alarm about what is at stake in this election. I am devoting all my time and energy in these remaining six days to defeating the recall -- and to defeating the Arnold Schwarzenegger-Pete Wilson forces that are trying to use the recall to hijack our state. Please help me do that by forwarding this message.
I have signed MoveOn's "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge and I urge you to do the same. More than 260,000 people have pledged to do something -- such as forwarding this email! -- in these last days to defeat the recall and stop Arnold Schwarzenegger. Click here to sign the pledge:
From the beginning of my campaign I have said that I opposed the recall on principle. It was backed by a bunch of Republican sore losers looking for a backdoor way to overturn an election they lost. Nevertheless, once the recall was set, I felt that the opportunity it offered to elect a truly independent and progressive governor was too important to let pass. And so I entered the race.
Here's the rest of the email message:
Now that it's clear that's not going to happen, my highest priority is to issue a wake up call and bring a sense of urgency to what is at stake. The people of California simply cannot afford to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor.
In 2000, we were taken in by a charming, affable man who promised us compassion but gave us war in Iraq, a soaring deficit, millions of lost jobs, two million more people living in poverty, and the rollback of vital environmental protections. I look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, and see more of the same. We don't need another figurehead for all the usual Republican special interests. Let's not be fooled again.
When this race started, Arnold Schwarzenegger was an unknown quantity. And a week before the election there is still far too much we don't know about him.
If, as he says, he is going to balance the budget but raise no taxes, shouldn't he have to tell us -- before the election, not after -- precisely what vital programs and services he proposes to cut to make that happen -- and precisely who is going to feel the pain of those cuts?
Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent millions of dollars crafting and selling a political persona that is completely contradicted by reality:
• He promised to take no special interest money, but then turned around and raised millions from special interests for his campaign.
• He painted himself as an outsider, but then surrounded himself with Pete Wilson operatives and a Who's Who of GOP insiders.
• He went on Oprah to appeal to women, but didn't include a single woman on his team of economic advisors. In a state where there are tens of thousands of women in positions of power, including both U.S. Senators, there was not even one woman who he thought worthy of adding to the mix?
• A vote for the recall is a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. We must not vote for a fantasy leader and end up with a nightmare: a Bush Republican who thinks the answer to all of California's problems can be found in making life even easier for businesses and giant corporations.
We can defeat the recall. But what will it take? It will take forwarding this email to all your friends, and picking up the phone and talking to those friends who might need your encouragement to vote, or who might need to hear more about what's at stake from you before they make up their mind. There are already 260,000 of us working against the recall in these simple ways. Sign the "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge to join us:
Sincerely,
-- Arianna Huffington
October 1st, 2003
If you forward this email to others, please be sensitive that you are sending to friends or colleagues who want to hear from you on this. Spam hurts our campaign.
I had an interesting time at the Rally at Sproul Plaza in Berkeley on September 16, 2003.
I won't say it was "fun" or anything, because it wasn't, really. More on this below. My first problem was that I had left late from school and I missed the first part of the speech. The second problem was that I had been up till 2:00 am the night before posting Cheney on Meet The Press clips. So I only got the last third of the speech (see below).
I was quite excited when I got to interview Jesse Jackson for a minute, but otherwise, it was kind of a mean crowd. Or, should I say "immature" crowd, at best. They had no respect for my camera, for instance. And one jerk even thought it was funny to push it over on purpose, once he realized I was trying to protect it.
I guess I've been spoiled for the most part at these kinds of events in the past, where everyone has been really nice and ducked when they walked in front of the camera and helped me to reach better views and the like. This crowd just wanted to get autographs after Jesse's speech and they were pushing and shoving really badly.
I decided to go stand on the stairs of Sproul Hall and try to get a better shot from up above. (I had given up on actually talking to Jesse). I guess the crowd's attitude toward me could have been partly my own fault from trying to maneuver in the crowd with a tripod, so I ditched the tripod and was trying to figure out how to get close again when...the usual miracle happened (Yes, I do have incredible luck at these events!) and Jesse started walked over towards me on the stairs.
His security people were holding back the crowd a bit, so I waited until he was close enough for him to hear me and took a chance on asking him a question. He didn't hear me the first time, so I asked him again. I saw a light go off when he heard the question, and he stopped signing for a minute and looked up and said "Huh?"
"Do you think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about the recall will hold?" I asked again.
Then he paused and thought for a minute, and gave his answer.
Here's an edited version of the speech. (Small - 5 MB)
Here's a longer, edited version of the speech. (Small - 18 MB)
Here's a near complete version of the speech. (Small - 31 MB)
This was just sent to me from MoveOn:
Dear fellow Californian,California is at a crossroads. Our finances, schools and society are all in crisis. And at this, our state's most vulnerable moment, a handful of self-interested political players are attempting an unprecedented power grab.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and his backers are seizing the recall as a once-in-a-lifetime chance for him to buy the governorship. The abbreviated race has allowed him to duck tough questions and avoid unscripted debate. He has promised voters a balanced budget without new taxes or spending cuts -- an impossibility except perhaps in a Hollywood movie. He has no plan for helping California and absolutely no experience that might help him come up with one.
The recall and Schwarzenegger's self-funded, media-driven campaign are sucker punches to our democratic system and values. We have seven full days left to fight back and a team of 250,000 people for this final push.
If you have not joined the team by signing our "No Recall" pledge, then please join us now by clicking here:
http://moveon.org/pac/recall/
If you've already signed, then forward this message to all your like-minded friends, coworkers and family and ask them to join us for this final one-week blitz to defeat the recall, stop Schwarzenegger and defend democracy. Let's grow our team to 300,000 people.
Don't be discouraged by the weekend's far-out poll: this race is so unusual that polls are even more meaningless than they usually are. We believe this is still an incredibly close race. And it's a fact that there are enough of us working on this to make the difference ourselves. But we've got to work hard: pick up the phone and call that friend you know might forget to vote, put up a sign in your window, sign up for phone banking -- do whatever it takes.
Over the next seven days we'll be highlighting several different things you can do to make a real, tangible difference in the recall election. With 300,000 people working together, we'll each just need to influence one other person to vote against the recall who might not have without us. If we can do that, then we'll defeat the recall by a wide margin and democracy will have a decisive victory on October 7.
Sincerely,
-- Carrie, James, Joan, Peter and Wes
(The Californians of) MoveOn.org PAC
September 29th, 2003PS: For more on how Schwarzenegger leads the pack in fundraising thanks to his own personal contributions, check out this article.
At the time of this writing, the Recall is already back on.
It wasn't at the time this aired, though.
This is from the September 16, 2003 program.
Stephen Colbert On Recalling the Recall (Small - 10 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Well, at least he's sticking to something he knows about: his Terminator movies.
This is just a little silly clip at the end of the September 17, 2003 program.
I thought it was pretty funny. I don't know why, really.
Arnie Over Explaining Himself (Small - 2 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
This is from the September 24, 2003 program.
So I really do have another 8 clips in the kitty that will be going up today, but then this happened last night and I really felt that it demanded priority over the others.
Great real news coverage of the implications of this week's decision by the courts by Jon before the comedy kicks in with a vengeance.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw this one. I think I laughed until I cried (for a lot of different reasons).
Why is the Daily Show the only "news" program to cover the real issues surrounding the decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals to knowingly disenfranchise millions of California voters?
I can't answer that question. But I did stay up late last night to bring this to you today.
CA Recall Update - Bush v. Gore Take 2 (Small - 10 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
I've converted the PDF files into HTML versions so we can view and link within them easily.
If you have a particular page where you'd like an embedded link to somewhere within the text for some reason. Just let me know.
The original, most excellent decision by the 3 Judge Panel, is on top, dated September 15, 2003.
The bogus, disappointing overturning of that decision, dated September 23, 2003, is below it.
CA Recall Decision Documents: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley
Crap. The recall's back on -- disenfranchised voters be damned.
Let's hope the Supreme Court steps in to save the day.
(No I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice, and I can dream, can't I?)
Here's a story on CNN about it.
I'll be making the docs available in HTML soon...
Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/recall.ruling/index.html
A second member of the U.S. military has been detained after being found with classified information on Guantanamo Bay detainees, CNN has learned. Details soon.
Appeals court reinstates California recall vote
Gubernatorial election gets green light for October 7
Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Posted: 1:19 PM EDT (1719 GMT)
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California Gov. Gray Davis will face a recall vote on October 7.
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- California's gubernatorial recall election should proceed as scheduled for October 7, a federal appeals courts ruled Tuesday, overturning last week's decision that delayed the proceeding.
The unanimous ruling from an 11-judge panel with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came less than 24 hours after a hearing at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the recall election should be delayed until March because some counties would be using outdated and unreliable voting equipment.
But the judges rejected that claim, concluding that more harm would come from postponing the election than allowing it to move forward. The ruling overturned a decision from a three-judge panel from the same court to postpone the election.
"There is no doubt that the right to vote is fundamental, but a federal court cannot lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election," the 11 judges ruled. The judges cited that "hundreds of thousands" of absentee voters already have cast their ballot and that the candidates have crafted their campaigns to coincide with the October 7 election.
"These investments of time, money and the exercise of citizenship rights cannot be returned," the ruling said.
The judges said the ACLU had raised some valid points, particularly as they relate to the claim that the use of punch-card ballots would disproportionately affect minority voters. That machinery is used in six counties with a high minority population.
But the judges said such a claim of voting mishaps was only a "possibility," not "a strong likelihood."
Unless the ACLU goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and that court halts the proceedings, California voters will head to the polls in two weeks and decide whether Democratic Gov. Gray Davis should be ousted. They also will pick a replacement -- choosing from 135 names on the ballot -- in case Davis is recalled.
Voters also will consider two statewide initiatives: Proposition 53, a proposed constitutional amendment requiring that a portion of the state budget be set aside for infrastructure spending, and Proposition 54, a measure that would restrict the ability of government agencies to collect racial data.
A spokesman for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate, hailed the ruling as "good news."
"The election has been ongoing with absentee ballots, hundreds of thousands of votes have already been cast, and now is time to move on to Election Day on October 7," said spokesman Sean Walsh.
A spokesman for an anti-recall group suggested his organization would not pursue further legal appeals but called on officials to make sure the election would be fair.
"It is time to move forward, but it is now doubly important that counties do everything in their power to make sure every single vote is counted," said Peter Ragone, communications director for Californians Against the Costly Recall.
Meanwhile, Davis was scheduled to appear Tuesday with another high-profile Democrat, part of a bid to cast the recall as some sort of national referendum.
Democrats are trying to depict the recall election as an effort by Republicans to overturn an election they could not win in November, when Davis was re-elected to a second term.
Davis is scheduled to discuss homeland security with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman in Santa Ana, while Schwarzenegger has a town hall meeting scheduled in Sacramento.
Even Schwarzenegger's wife, television journalist Maria Shriver, is in on the act, speaking to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on "Ten Things You Should Know About Arnold."
On Wednesday, the leading recall candidates -- including Schwarzenegger who has skipped earlier forums -- will gather for a debate.
If you're as much of a courtroom junkie as I am, you'll dig these clips from yesterday of Judge Alex Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld.
(A friend filled me in on who Kleinfeld was. I only recognized Alex Kozinski because he was at the moot court at the Spectrum Policy Conference last March.)
Clip #1 is from CNN's "Inside Politics" and contains Kozinski as he questions one of the lawyers.
Clip #2 is also from CNN's "Inside Politics" and contains analysis from a couple of the show's stock pundits.
Clip #3 is from CNN's "Crossfire" and includes footage of Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld as they question the lawyers.
These are all from September 23, 2003.
Clip #1: Justice Alex Kozinski on CNN's Inside Politics.
Justice Kozinski On CNN (Small - 10 MB)
Clip #2: Pundit analysis of the CA Recall from CNN's Inside Politcs.
Inside Politics On The CA Recall (Small - 14 MB)
Clip #3: Justices Kozinski and Kleinfeld questioning the lawyers.
9th Circuit Court Of Appeals On The CA Recall (Small - 8 MB)
This is from the September 10, 2003 program.
Rob Courddry On The CA Recall 9/10/03 (Small - 10 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
This is from the September 16, 2003 program.
Daily Show's Recall On The Recall (Small - 9 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
One More Round For Bush v. Gore
By Charles Lane for the Washington Post.
Bush v. Gore held for the first time that the Constitution's equal protection clause, which protects citizens from arbitrarily disparate treatment at the hands of state authorities, can be applied to the methods states use to tally votes. Previously, election methods had been thought to be mostly the province of state officials.The court ruled that a statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to account for uncounted punch-card ballots, many of which were marred by "hanging chads" and the like, would be conducted according to wildly varying rules, making it impossible for the state to treat everyone equally within the short time available.
For the liberal interest groups and lawyers who have been fighting California's recall, Bush v. Gore has mutated from reviled electoral coup to legitimate legal weapon.
If the case means anything, they argue, it means that the Constitution forbids states from arbitrarily counting different voters' ballots differently. That includes setting up an election in which one technology, the punch-card machines, would subject a sizeable percentage of voters -- among whom are a disproportionate number of minorities -- to a greater risk of having their ballots discounted than other voters.
Indeed, yesterday's ruling flowed from earlier litigation, since settled, in which groups used Bush v. Gore to win a promise from the state that all its punch-card machines would be replaced by March 2004, when the state will hold Republican and Democratic primaries.
The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, about 40,000 out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.
Such discrepancies would probably not have risen to the level of a federal issue in the past, but 2000 changed all that, the 9th Circuit ruled.
"If we had brought the punch-card case to court before Bush v. Gore, you'd likely see the courts say, 'No, states have to have some leeway,' " said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who aided the American Civil Liberties Union in the case. "But if it doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere."
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16011-2003Sep15.html
Analysis: The Law
One More Round For Bush v. Gore
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A01
Just last February, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a dissenter in the historic 2000 election case that handed victory to President Bush, told a law school audience in San Diego that Bush v. Gore was a "one of a kind case," adding: "I doubt it will ever be cited as precedent by the court on anything."
But yesterday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit essentially declared that the legal fallout of the 2000 case is not so easily contained.
In a 66-page unsigned opinion, the panel, made up of Judges Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, cited Bush v. Gore repeatedly to support the view that California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election would be unconstitutional if the state, as planned, used outmoded punch-card ballot machines like those that contributed to the deadlock in Florida in 2000. The punch-card technology would deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to have their ballots counted fairly, the court ruled.
"In this case, Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claim mirrors the one recently analyzed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore," the 9th Circuit observed.
If the panel ruling is not reversed by a larger 9th Circuit body, the Supreme Court justices, for whom the stress and strain -- both personal and institutional -- of 2000 are still a fresh memory, will face a choice. They can stay out of the California case and risk permitting what they may view as a debatable interpretation of Bush v. Gore to stand, or they can plunge in and assume the risk that they will once again be criticized for partisanship no matter what they decide.
Bush v. Gore held for the first time that the Constitution's equal protection clause, which protects citizens from arbitrarily disparate treatment at the hands of state authorities, can be applied to the methods states use to tally votes. Previously, election methods had been thought to be mostly the province of state officials.
The court ruled that a statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to account for uncounted punch-card ballots, many of which were marred by "hanging chads" and the like, would be conducted according to wildly varying rules, making it impossible for the state to treat everyone equally within the short time available.
For the liberal interest groups and lawyers who have been fighting California's recall, Bush v. Gore has mutated from reviled electoral coup to legitimate legal weapon.
If the case means anything, they argue, it means that the Constitution forbids states from arbitrarily counting different voters' ballots differently. That includes setting up an election in which one technology, the punch-card machines, would subject a sizeable percentage of voters -- among whom are a disproportionate number of minorities -- to a greater risk of having their ballots discounted than other voters.
Indeed, yesterday's ruling flowed from earlier litigation, since settled, in which groups used Bush v. Gore to win a promise from the state that all its punch-card machines would be replaced by March 2004, when the state will hold Republican and Democratic primaries.
The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, about 40,000 out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.
Such discrepancies would probably not have risen to the level of a federal issue in the past, but 2000 changed all that, the 9th Circuit ruled.
"If we had brought the punch-card case to court before Bush v. Gore, you'd likely see the courts say, 'No, states have to have some leeway,' " said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who aided the American Civil Liberties Union in the case. "But if it doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere."
But others say both the recall's opponents and the 9th Circuit panel -- made up of three of that left-leaning court's most liberal members -- have misinterpreted Bush v. Gore.
For all its conclusive impact on the Florida recount, the Supreme Court's majority opinion ended on a note of ambivalence.
Protesting that their involvement was an "unsought responsibility," the majority -- made up of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- said the decision was "limited to the present circumstances."
The 9th Circuit panel just blew by that admonition, some legal analysts say.
"It over-read Bush v. Gore a little bit," said Vikram Amar, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. "You can't say it's quite identical, because Bush v. Gore involved manual recounts, not machine mistakes. In 2000, the Supreme Court was worried that standardless criteria allowed individuals to manipulate results, and that may be worse constitutionally than machine errors skewing the result."
I had a chance to speak briefly with Jesse Jackson after his speech today.
This took place in Sproul Plaza on Tuesday, September 16, 2003.
Jesse Jackson On Whether Or Not The 9th Circuit Decision On The Recall Will Hold (Small - 3 MB)
Jesse Jackson On Whether Or Not The 9th Circuit Decision On The Recall Will Hold (Hi-res - 35 MB)
Lisa Rein: "Do you think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about the Recall election is gonna hold?"
Jesse Jackson: "It's difficult to say, only because this Supreme Court did an extrodinary thing in 2000. They stopped the vote determining the outcome of the presidency. So if they would do it for a President, they might do it for a Governor. You just don't know. So we must be prepared."
"I feel that momentum is building. People are finally beginning to see the danger of this act of disenfranchisement and destabilization. Whether it's Prop 54 or the Recall. Both are of the same ideology. They seek to disenfranchise and to destablize and people must fight back. If we fight back, we'll win."
