SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KonKilo who wrote (9964)9/30/2003 3:46:11 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793711
 
Davis in a Risky Gambit
His last-ditch strategy hopes to create fear that Schwarzenegger isn't up to the job. There are signs that the approach could backfire.
By Mark Z. Barabak
Times Staff Writer

September 30, 2003

In a final bid to save his job, Gov. Gray Davis is hoping to recast the recall election in its last few days as a different sort of referendum: a vote on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

After trying out various approaches — indifference, anger, contrition and, now, confrontation — the beleaguered incumbent and his strategists are hoping that an added element, fear, can help achieve the 50%-plus-one vote he needs to stay put.

"What we have to do is make people realize a 'yes' vote is a vote for Arnold," said David Doak, a Davis advisor, referring to the interplay of the two main questions on next Tuesday's ballot. "This is not small potatoes here. This is a big, complicated place and there's a lot to know about. He's not going to be stepping into an easy situation."

The strategy is risky, however. With Davis' dismal approval ratings and history of slashing campaigns, he may seem less than credible to voters. The fact that the Democrat trails in opinion polls also may undermine his arguments. "Whatever they come out with now, it's going to look like sour grapes," said Stuart Spencer, a veteran GOP strategist.

But perhaps the biggest risk is that voters will see no risk at all. That is, they not only accept the idea of actor Schwarzenegger, a political neophyte, assuming the helm of the nation's most populous state, but actually embrace it.

"The public knows who Arnold is," said Tony Quinn, a nonpartisan Sacramento campaign analyst. "He's one of the most famous people on the face of the earth. They're not looking for a 12-point plan dealing with water transfers. They just don't like the way the whole political class has run things."

Strategists for the Republican front-runner are blunter still. "This recall is, in fact, a referendum on Davis, and he's failed it," said Mike Murphy, communications chief for Schwarzenegger's campaign. "Gray Davis is everything people in California have learned to despise about politics."

Partisan shots aside, the real problem Davis faces in these waning days of the campaign is persistent defections within his own party ranks. It is among those drifting Democrats that Davis hopes to raise fears of Schwarzenegger as governor.

Surveys have consistently suggested that about one in five of the governor's fellow Democrats plan to vote next Tuesday to turn him out of office. Many are convinced, Davis aides say, that he will win anyway — in the same way the governor won reelection in November after Democrats stayed home in droves, or backed third-party candidates as a means of casting a protest vote.

For that reason, the Davis camp professed to welcome a CNN/USA Today poll that showed the recall winning in a landslide and Schwarzenegger the top finisher in the replacement race. Even if the recall's lead was far larger than in any other poll, it was "a bit of a shock to the system" that Democrats needed, awakening party loyalists to the prospect of a Schwarzenegger victory, said Susan Kennedy, a Davis advisor.

Still, the Davis camp is laboring under one great disadvantage: People don't like the governor very much. So there is, literally, only so much he can do to save himself. Indeed, his next batch of campaign ads illustrate that harsh reality. The spots — echoing Davis statements on the campaign trail — are expected to borrow from a number of newspaper editorials opposing the recall and criticizing his Republican rival.

By contrast, Schwarzenegger is the star of his latest TV ad, set to begin airing today. Staring into the camera, he asks voters for their help and blames the state's problems on politicians in Sacramento, hoping to tap a vein of anger running broad and deep across California. "I know what we need to do, and I know how to get it done," he says, without elaborating on either point.

For all his missteps, his glancing discussion of issues and the distraction posed by the candidacy of fellow Republican Tom McClintock, Schwarzenegger has long had an easier task in this election than Davis. After all, while the governor needs majority support to survive, his challenger only needs one more vote than any of the other 134 candidates on the replacement ballot, which excludes the incumbent.

Schwarzenegger has been the Republican front-runner from the instant he made his unconventional entry into the race, with a blurted announcement on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show." The actor's celebrity ensured that name recognition was never a problem, and his vast personal wealth allowed him to build a lavish campaign operation.

But Schwarzenegger's greatest strength has been his outsider message, delivered with perfect pitch and exquisite timing: precisely when the establishment is the enemy, and voters are willing to take a bigger risk than usual for the sake of trying something new.

"I think the masses of people are thinking, 'Fine, he won't do any worse than anyone else,' " said analyst Quinn. "They're putting their trust in maybe. Maybe things will get better. Maybe he can fix things."

For Davis, the challenge over the next week is to turn "maybe" into "not likely" — or something even more frightening.

"We're going to point out that a number of major newspapers who've studied the issues and the candidates thoroughly have voiced concerns about Arnold's qualifications and the kind of campaign he's run, that he's been ducking the issues, ducking debates," said Doak, who produces the governor's TV advertising. This is not a campaign, he added, that "calls for a typical campaign out rah-rahing."

But Davis himself has to be careful. In the eyes of many voters, "he's the bad guy in this whole thing," said Spencer, the GOP strategist, which means stepping with extra care. Spencer recalled working for another actor who made an improbable run for governor and faced many of the same questions about his job qualifications and acumen for issues.

Growing desperate in his 1966 reelection bid, Democratic incumbent Pat Brown committed a blunder that has grown legendary in California political lore.

Speaking to a grade-school audience, Brown said, "Do you know who's running against me? That actor, and remember, it was an actor who shot Abraham Lincoln."

The backlash was fierce, helping political newcomer Ronald Reagan win his first political race in a landslide.

latimes.com



To: KonKilo who wrote (9964)9/30/2003 6:10:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793711
 
Wouldn't want you to miss your favorite columnist, SC. :>)
__________________________________________________________________________

Bring on the capitalists

September 28, 2003

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Wanna score some government dope? In Canada, the courts recently ruled that patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and other diseases were entitled to enjoy the benefits of ''medical marijuana'' -- and not just any old marijuana, but official government marijuana, supplied to them by Health Canada, the government health system. Health Canada mulled it over and set up a program to grow the court-ordered federal pot in a disused mine in Flin Flon, Manitoba.

Of the first 10 patients to be supplied with the government weed, half claim it's the worst pot they've ever smoked. They're sending it back to Ottawa and they want a full refund. ''It's totally unsuitable for human consumption,'' says Jim Wakeford, an AIDS patient in Gibsons, British Columbia. ''I threw up,'' says Barrie Dalley of Toronto.

Health Canada insists their dope contains 10.2 percent THC, the main active ingredient. But the respected pot lobbyist Philippe Lucas says the government weed is only 3 percent THC and full of contaminants like lead and arsenic. Aren't lead and arsenic dangerous? To modify Nancy Reagan: ''Just say no to government drugs.''

One of the reasons I'm in favor of small government is because there's hardly anything the government doesn't do worse than anybody else who wants to give it a go. Usually when I make this observation, I'm thinking of, say, Britain's late unlamented nationalized car industry. But when the government of a G7 nation can't run a small marijuana sideline as well as a college student with a window box, that seems to set an entirely new standard for official underperformance. Big government goes to pot, in every sense.

Instead of its hugely wasteful ''war on drugs,'' the U.S. government might have been better just to legalize them, give the contract to the government of Canada, and in three months the entire drug market would have collapsed and guys would be huddled in darkened alleys saying, ''Hey, man, do you know where I can get some butterscotch pudding?''

Other plants in the news these days include the Gentry indigo bush. This rare shrub grows in a few selected parts of Arizona and Mexico, close to a proposed transmission line Tucson Electric Power hopes to construct to enable it to supply electricity to its southern neighbor, so that impoverished Mexicans will have better street lighting to guide them as they swarm across the U.S. border to pick up their complimentary drivers licenses and free health care from Gray Davis. But now the whole project is in doubt. Although an environmental study says the Gentry indigo bush would be unaffected one way or the other by the power line, the Center for Biological Diversity is suing the U.S. government to get the bush listed as an endangered species and thus indirectly put pressure on Tucson Electric.

Alas, Jeff Humphrey of the Fish and Wildlife Service says his agency has no money to list any new endangered species because its budget is mostly tied up in court cases brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and similar groups. Got that? If this keeps up, the endangered species list will itself be an endangered species. And the barrage of litigation on behalf of various beleaguered flora and fauna will have resulted in a spectacular increase in population for mainly one species: environmental lawyers.

The Gentry indigo bush doesn't seem to be ''endangered.'' True, you can't find it in northern Maine. But then you never could. This would seem to be yet another example of how every do-gooding cause eventually floats free of whatever good it was trying to do and becomes a self-perpetuating business all of its own. The racism industry, for example, is now so large and lucrative and employs so many highly remunerated people from the Rev. Jesse Jackson down that it has a far greater interest than the Klu Klux Klan in maintaining racism. Thus, the African-American Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee was recently moved to complain that the naming of hurricanes is racist. Apparently, blacks are being discriminated against because hardly any massively destructive meteorological phenomena are given African-American names. The black community can't relate to some white-bread wind like Hurricane Isabel. Why are there never any Hurricane Leroys? It's deeply racist and insulting to imply that only WASPily appellated forces of nature are capable of billions of dollars of coastal damage.

Which brings us, as most things do, to Iraq. In the last few weeks, almost all the big NGOs -- nongovernmental organizations -- have pulled out of the country, either partially or totally: Oxfam, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders ... Is it dangerous? Maybe. When I was in Iraq earlier this year, I detected a good deal of resentment at the NGO big shots swanking around like colonial grandees in their gleaming Cherokees and Suburbans. But Iraq's a good deal less dangerous than, say, Liberia, where drugged-up gangs roam the streets killing at random, and the humanitarian lobby -- Big Consciences -- is happy to stay on.

What's different is the political agenda. The humanitarian touring circuit is now the oldest established permanent floating crap game. Regions such as West Africa, where there's no pretense anything will ever get better, or the Balkans, which are maintained by the U.N. as the global equivalent of a slum housing project, suit the aid agencies perfectly: There's never not a need for them. But in Iraq they've decided they're not interested in staying to see the electric grid back up to capacity and the water system improved if it's an American administration at the helm. The Big Consciences have made a political decision: that it's not in their interest for the Bush crowd to succeed, and that calculation outweighs any concern they might have for the Iraqi people.

Heigh-ho. For six months, their Chicken Little predictions of humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq have failed to emerge. If the country gets by perfectly fine without them, that may be a very useful lesson.

Meanwhile, who's staying on? The private sector: Bechtel and Halliburton and all the other supposed Bush cronies invited to help rebuild postwar Iraq. According to the conspirazoids, Dick Cheney planned 9/11 so that he'd have an excuse to topple Saddam Hussein and his old company Halliburton could make a killing. Fine. Let's take that as read. The fact is, right now, Oxfam and the other do-gooders have fled, and the only folks standing shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqi people are the wicked capitalists.

So, in a month when the government can't even be a competent drug dealer, and environmental nonprofit groups have bankrupted the endangered species list, and the international humanitarians have decided the Iraqis can go screw themselves, I say: Let's hear it for the private sector.

suntimes.com



To: KonKilo who wrote (9964)9/30/2003 6:56:23 AM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793711
 
I was going to read this - I really was. Until I saw the first two words he put to paper were "Karl Rove."

I'd like to find out what really happened. I don't think we will until the slavering after a head on a pike has passed....