California Dreamin': "(U)nless we expect more, demand more and wake the hell up, it's hasta la vista, democracy."
Lizzie,
I think this may be the best article I've read so far describing the dark heart of the Republican plan for California and the nation. I recall you suggesting upstream that PR is a necessary tool in this election. Here's someone who agrees 100% with me that PR is the last thing we need now. What we need, if democracy is to survive this insane powergrab by the GOP, is to let the sunshine disinfect this whole recall process. -Ray
buzzflash.com
August 19, 2003
A Little Song, a Little Dance, a Little Bratwurst in Your Pants and It's "Hasta La Vista" Democracy!
by Maureen Farrell
The movie Demolition Man contains a Sylvester Stallone/Sandra Bullock scene that inspires either chuckles or winces, depending upon one's perspective. Referencing the "Schwarzenegger Library," Bullock's character sparks the following exchange:
Stallone: "Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"
Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor?"
Stallone: "Stop! He was President?"
Bullock: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment…"
Though written in 1993, this piece of fiction is remarkably apropos for 2003, considering everything that's happened in America in the past decade. From Bill Clinton's impeachment to the 2000 selection to Texas redistricting and the California recall, the GOP power-grab has made nearly everything seem surreal, with even the "61st amendment" scenario becoming more than just a figment of a screenwriter's imagination. Just last month, "without fanfare," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, which would lift the requirement that U.S. presidents be American-born. "Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing a constitutional amendment that could allow his pal, fund-raising helper and potential California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, to also run for U.S. president someday," one newspaper noted, asking a question few ever thought possible in America: "Give 'Terminator' a shot at White House?" [LINK]
That's jumping fairly far ahead, of course. But with only 10% of the vote needed to win the California gubernatorial race (provided Gray Davis doesn't exceed 49 percent) and with Schwarzenegger's political career infused with the GOP star-making machine, who knows what the long-term strategy might be? Bedtime for Bonzo, anyone?
All along, the media have acted as if Rep. Darrell Issa was behind the California recall drive, in much the same way they pretend President George Bush is actually running the country. But Issa was merely a pawn for GOP operatives who set this plan in motion long ago. Prospect Magazine called Issa "a useful idiot for a stealthy group of GOP operatives," while BuzzFlash mused that "[Karl] Rove used the rich Congressman (Darrell Issa, 49th District) for a sap." [LINK] "Even if the Bush administration wasn't behind the original recall movement," Joe Conason noted, "its operatives have encouraged every step and are scheming to reap the results.. . The President and his advisers don't care whether the will of last November's electorate is overturned, or whether this fiasco sets an awful precedent, or whether Mr. Schwarzenegger is qualified to hold office-or even whether the actor shares their conservative social views. What they do care about is getting and holding power." [LINK]
While right-wing pundits habitually dismissed antiwar celebrities and decried attempts to stack democracy's deck in the Democrats' favor, there has been a laughably hypocritical change of heart. Celebrities, considered hapless airheads but a few months ago, are now fit to govern one of the most important states in the country. Moreover, when Frank Lautenberg was brought in to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli in the 2002 New Jersey Senate race, candidate Doug Forrester whined about inherent unfairness, ironically foretelling the California recall strategy. "I assume that November 5 is the last day of the election," he complained. "Who knows? We're going to be ahead on November 5 [in] the vote count and somebody's going to run, and say give democracy another chance. I'm going to be running against Barbra Streisand in December." [LINK]
This double standard aside, one of the more fascinating items in the aforementioned
Prospect piece [LINK] is the outing of former Enron pollster Frank Luntz as one of the GOP operatives working behind the recall scenes. Saying that Luntz "devised a strategy for the recall campaign centering around negative character attacks and avoidance of policy discussion," Max Blumenthal blew Luntz's innocent bystander shtick out of the propaganda pond. Anyone who watches cable "news" shows recognizes Luntz as an MSNBC regular who craftily sways conversations rightward, while criticizing fellow pollsters like Pat Caddell for stepping beyond objective pollster bounds. (Luntz even called Caddell "out of control" and "insane" during a Hardball appearance for rightfully asserting that empire-hungry "Jacobins" had hijacked American foreign policy).
Writing as if strategy had not been discussed during his April lunch meeting with Schwarzenegger, Luntz advised the candidate in a recent editorial: "So what should would-be, could-be governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learn from all this if he wants to jump from the silver screen to the governor's mansion? As a pollster, I would tell him that it's imperative to tell the voters not what he thinks but who he really is. That is, rather than act the part of a politician with all the political language, postures and plans, he needs to tell Californians how his celebrity life and business success have made him especially suited to lead the state.. . . " SURE, Californians will ask where he stands on "the issues" and will want to know that he is capable of communicating with his colleagues," Luntz wrote, making it clear that "the issues" are not as important as the carefully crafted persona. [LINK]
If that weren't enough to make caring citizens cringe, another Hardball appearance captured the quintessential essence of Luntz's (and the "liberal" media's) objectivity:
MATTHEWS: Why do people hate Gray Davis, because he's gray and boring, because he raises all his money and has no personality? Because he screwed it on the energy crisis? What would you say were the chief reasons?
LUNTZ: Those are four great reasons right there, but let me give you three more. The biggest deficit in the history of America, the highest tax increases in the history of America and the highest percentage-they're calling it now "Taxifornia" rather than "Taxachusetts" because so many Californians have to pay so much in taxes. There's that kind of frustration. And they don't see the future. Californians are asking for a plan. They're asking for a vision. Gray Davis doesn't have either. [LINK]
While Luntz's strategy of "negative character attacks and avoidance of policy discussion" may work on some, Robert Scheer is seeing red. "How dare Arnold Schwarzenegger or any Republican now ignore the well-documented gaming of the California energy market by Bush's Texas cronies, many of whom landed high posts in his administration?" he wrote. "Was Davis responsible for manufacturing spikes in energy prices that nearly bankrupted the state? Of course not - but he took the political hit when the lights went out. It's a safe bet that Schwarzenegger and the other Republicans running will offer not a word of criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous meetings with top energy executives that excluded consumer representatives. The minutes of those meetings are still secret, yet we know that the policy that emerged benefited the con artists who caused California's energy crisis in the first place." [LINK]
And guaranteed, the more Schwarzenegger avoids the issues, the less likely he'll be asked uncomfortable questions on everything from his father's Nazi past [LINK] to why he failed to vote in 5 of the last 11 elections [LINK]. But even so, when such questions are raised, someone from the "liberal media" is certain to intervene. When Arianna Huffington recently asked the media to delve into Schwarzenegger's May 11, 2001 meeting with Ken Lay, Richard Riordan and Michael Milken, for example, CNN's Kyra Phillips interrupted a legitimate Q&A session and lurched into action. Note her bizarre intervention:
QUESTION: Ms. Huffington, Why is it that you think that Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Ken Lay here? What was in it for him?
HUFFINGTON: You know, it's not for me to answer why he met with Ken Lay. I'm not going to speculate. All I'm saying is it's time that the media started doing their job and asking the questions of the candidate instead of asking questions of his spokesman. It's not Pete Wilson who is running for governor. It is Arnold Schwarzenegger. And yet, every television station I go to, I'm either preceded or followed by Pete Wilson. I'm getting a little confused.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) follow up for a second? Why was it wrong for him to have this meeting, in your opinion?
HUFFINGTON: In my opinion, when the state is going through rolling blackouts and a senior Republican is meeting here with Ken Lay, the head of Enron, which was a company, to a large extent, responsible for the energy crisis in California, I think there's some answering to be done here.
QUESTION: Arianna, when you look at (OFF-MIKE) do you see school programs and...
PHILLIPS: OK. Arianna Huffington, let the mud slinging begin. Here we go. We're going to bring our Bob Franken back in. He's, of course, [covering] the recall election in Los Angeles. All right, these are the accusations we were waiting for. Arianna Huffington making some charges against Arnold Schwarzenegger, saying he's come out calling himself the people's governor. Yet the first point she makes, Bob, this connection to Ken Lay, of course, the former chair and CEO of collapsed Enron, the company that went under due to deceptive behavior. Is this just the beginning of a number of candidates coming forward and digging up things on each other?
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, sure.
PHILLIPS: Add the balance, Bob.
(LAUGHTER)
"Our Bob Franken" then proceeded to level charges against Huffington as if he were working for Schwarzenegger's campaign. [LINK] Would Phillips and her reporter in shining armor come to Huffington's defense so readily? And if not, why not?
In light of this and other "liberal media" snafus, the dance has been interesting to watch -- especially since those now heralding the Terminator's fitness for office were trashing outspoken and informed celebrities just a few months ago. Moreover, "false linkages made between Saddam, al-Qaeda and 9/11, stories of ready-to-launch weapons that didn't exist, of nuclear programs never embarked upon" were spouted by "insanely pugilistic media commentators" forming a propaganda effort that was so "sophisticated and pervasive" that the Guardian's Brian Eno dubbed it "prop-agenda." [LINK] Meanwhile, the campaign to oust Gray Davis was simultaneously being orchestrated. This Tucker Carlson retrospective, for example, underscores the M.O.:
1: Demonize Gray Davis (Oct. 2002), CARLSON: "I feel sorry for Bill Simon.. . . And I feel sorry for the people of California who have to live with Gray Davis. Even you can't support that." [LINK].
2: Patronize antiwar celebrities, while helping the White House hype an imaginarily imminent threat (Jan. 2003), CARLSON: "I know, as you do, that Bianca Jagger has gone over to Iraq. And I find that compelling, too. Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, they move my heart as well. But the fact is, there is a real threat from Iraq, and it is the duty of government, no matter how much it costs, to protect its citizens from threats." [LINK]
3: Repeat lies about Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and belittle anyone who doesn't blindly believe them. (Feb. 2003, to Janeane Garafolo), CARLSON: "Janeane, you were asking why am I patronizing? You said a minute ago that there is no evidence that Iraq has any links to al Qaeda. Yet you claim to read the paper. Those claims are uncontested." [LINK]
4: Demonize Gray Davis again, while touting Arnold Schwarzenegger as the manly man of the hour. (June, 2003), CARLSON: "Just months after being re-elected, Gray Davis has so mismanaged his job as governor of California that he's facing a popular revolt. A voter-write initiative. It is likely to bounce him from office later this year. Boo Hoo. And who will replace him?
The most promising candidate appears to be actor, body builder, and Republican activist, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger recently received the coveted Howard Stern endorsement during an appearance yesterday on Stern's radio show.
We will help you win, Stern said, adding that he admires Schwarzenegger's physique. Quote: "You have a bratwurst in your pants." You got to have a body you're proud of, the future governor replied. Mr. Schwarzenegger is, of course, welcome on CROSSFIRE any time, bratwurst or not." [LINK]
Later deeming Gray Davis "a complete disaster," (once again, thanks largely to GOP ploys few ever discuss [LINK] [LINK] in television), Carlson asserted that "here the people of California may end up bouncing him -- in the most Democratic possible process. It's very hard to argue with that. It is the will of the people."
The will of the people? That certainly wasn't the GOP mantra in 2000, was it? And why the sudden deference for celebrities? Of course, if Susan Sarandon ran for office and postponed discussion of the issues, she'd be eaten alive. Thus far, however, Schwarzenegger has followed Luntz's avoidance strategy and seems to stand for puppies, moonlight and happiness -- running on nothing more controversial than the "bratwurst in your pants" platform. And so far, this strategy seems to be working. A little song, a little dance, a little bratwurst in your pants and suddenly, you're Tucker Carlson's "most promising candidate."
Yet larger lessons loom. Americans must never forget that the last time an actor ran for office (and a Bush was involved), some very strange things occurred, including: "behind-the-scenes maneuvering" [LINK]; an "October Surprise" [LINK]; weird assassination coincidences; [LINK] [LINK]; the subversion of the U.S. Constitution; foreign policy bribery; shameless lies to Congress; assorted pardons; and other Iran-Contra fun [LINK].
George Bush's behavior, in fact, proved, as Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh warned, that "powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office -- deliberately abusing the public trust -- without consequence," reminding us what happens when any president serves as a front for what Bill Moyers described as "the secret government" [LINK] -- a legacy, it seems, that has been passed from father to son. [LINK] Is it any wonder Ronald Reagan Jr. deems Bush et al secretive, corrupt and untrustworthy? [LINK]
While Schwarzenegger talks about "cleaning house" some of us remember the 2000 "scrubbing" of voter rolls -- and realize that the GOP's main thrust is "getting and holding power." In other words, as Bill Maher put it, "Between trying to impeach Bill Clinton, Florida 2000 and the recall in California, I'm beginning to think that Republicans will do anything to win an election -- except get the most votes."
The United State's post-W.W.II habit of overthrowing governments, fixing elections, and subverting democracy elsewhere has come home to roost. In just a few short years, a duly elected president was impeached, elections were rigged [LINK] [LINK]; plans were drafted to insure a GOP victory in Texas; and a democratically decided election is in the process of being overturned. In short, we've experienced many of the dirty tricks we've visited upon others [LINK], but without any mass realization of what has taken place.
Busy, distracted and steered by a complicit media, Americans have shown more outrage over American Idol injustices and Olympic skating improprieties than they have the usurpation of the democratic process. Politics are becoming increasingly shallow -- with real discussion and political insight becoming increasingly less important. What better candidate for the secret government than an easily recognizable front man who spouts catchy one-liners and refuses to address the issues?
Unless America turns off Extreme Makeover and starts paying attention, we can look forward to more stolen elections and more puppet presidencies. Even if Hatch's amendment doesn't pass, and Schwarzenegger never runs for higher office, one thing is clear -- eternal vigilance truly is the price of liberty. And unless we expect more, demand more and wake the hell up, it's hasta la vista, democracy. |
