Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2003

LOOKING AHEAD: If Gray barely

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:48 pm

LOOKING AHEAD: If Gray barely pulls this out (a very unlikely scenario), raise your hand if you think the ACLU will file suit to contest the election.

Second question: if Arnold barely pulls it out (a more likely scenario), how long before the ACLU requests a stay of Arnold’s taking office due to Voting Rights Act violations?

And when they do, will the request go to Judge Wilson? To the three-judge panel that issued the bogus decision delaying the election? I need an expert in federal appellate procedure to answer these questions. E-mail me at the link to the left.

UPDATE: I may have figured this out myself, with help from Larry Solum. This post of his says that “power over the case has been returned to the United States District Court” — meaning Judge Wilson. Since I have never heard that the case filed by the ACLU was dismissed, presumably no new lawsuit would have to be filed. The ACLU would then follow the same procedure they following the first time: seek an injunction from Judge Wilson, and (if denied) go back to the Court of Appeals.

I still have a variant of the same question I had before: if it goes up on appeal, does it go to 1) the original three-judge panel, 2) the en banc court, or 3) a new, randomly selected three-judge panel? My guess is option #1 — which could set us up for the Circus all over again. But if anyone disagrees and can explain why, I would appreciate an e-mail.

LOVE CHILD SCANDAL: One more

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:44 pm

LOVE CHILD SCANDAL: One more day, one more smear job. Now it’s the National Enquirer with a love child scandal.

This reminds me of listening to this yahoo Ken Minyard on our local radio station KABC, talking about how there was a conspiracy among the tabloids to be nice to Arnold. This same guy Minyard also claimed that he had done the research and couldn’t find any evidence that Cruz Bustamante was ever a member of MEChA. Wrong again, Ken!

AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE BY THE

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:24 am

AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE BY THE DOG TRAINER: The Los Angeles Dog Trainer today purports to answer questions about the Arnold stinkbomb, in a story titled Readers Angry at The Times for Schwarzenegger Stories. Not surprisingly, the story doesn’t really answer the relevant questions.

Most important, it doesn’t answer the question about why the paper has (apparently) never gone forward with an investigation of allegations that Gray Davis hurled phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees, and personally shoved and shook workers “until their teeth rattled” — all while screaming the f-word repeatedly. I have mentioned this story numerous times, first on August 11, then again here, in great detail here, and most recently here. Jill Stewart, who dug up the allegations, discusses them again today, and the San Francisco Chronicle has at least reported that the Arnold campaign has raised the issue. But as far as I know, no hint of this very serious controversy has ever made it onto the pages of the Dog Trainer.

Dog Trainer editor John Carroll says that the Dog Trainer has run several negative stories about Gray Davis, and he’s right. But the topics covered by these stories don’t surprise anyone. Is anyone surprised by Gray Davis’s fund-raising peccadilloes? by his use of attack advertising? Of course not. But there are plenty of people who might be surprised by — and have their vote swayed by — evidence that our tightly wound and coiffed Governor is a raging lunatic behind closed doors.

But the folks at the Dog Trainer have not only refused (apparently) to take the first step towards investigating such allegations — they have actively sought to portray the opposite image of Davis as a guy with a “calm demeanor.” I complained bitterly about this on August 11. But it’s still going on. Today, the Dog Trainer‘s front page has a story titled Davis Is Battling Image of Aloofness.

It sounds like we should instead be reading a story titled “Davis Is Battling Allegations of Physical Abuse of Workers.” If I’m wrong about this, John Carroll should explain why.

Second, the story doesn’t really address the issues of where this all came from. It purports to, with the following language (emphasis by Patterico):

Carroll said the reporters had, for the most part, made “cold calls” to people in the film industry after hearing that Schwarzenegger had a reputation for mistreating women. For instance, he said, they had called women listed in the credits of movies starring Schwarzenegger.

“None of these women came to us; none of these women was suggested to us by anyone connected to any of the campaigns as far as we know,” he said.

As I have pointed out, that’s the problem: you don’t know for sure. If the story had been built entirely on cold calls, the situation would be different — but Carroll says only that reporters did that “for the most part.” It’s the other part that many of us are worried about. [UPDATE ADDED IN CONTEXT: For example, L.A. Weekly reports that one of the women did in fact come forward at the behest of a woman with deep ties to Davis and the Democrats — but who was described by the Dog Trainer simply as a peace activist and “co-founder of the women’s peace group Code Pink.” When asked why the paper had not mentioned that she is also “a former close colleague of Gov. Gray Davis, a longtime Democratic operative and a friend of noted Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland,” Dog Trainer columnist George Skelton told the L.A. Weekly reporter: “Maybe the reporters and editors just didn’t know.” Are you starting to get it, John Carroll?]

Finally, the timing of this will never be above suspicion. I have argued that the editors selected their own internal deadline, and therefore should have selected one that wasn’t less than a week before the election. There is a pattern here, as I have mentioned before. This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. It’s not just Arnold — it’s Arnold, and Bush, and Michael Huffington, and Issa, and Herschensohn.

In light of this history, the timing was sickeningly predictable. Mickey Kaus called it to the day. And Jill Stewart, noting that the hit piece was dumped on readers the Thursday before the election, says:

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election “Dirty Tricks Thursday.” That’s the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

The intent to influence the election seems clear. What will be ironic is if this election ends up tightening to the point where the race is decided in favor of recall and Arnold, by absentee ballots — ballots cast before Thursday’s hit job, by voters unaware of the allegations.

I am sure that the folks at the Dog Trainer feel beleaguered. The public is killing the messenger, they no doubt think. To the extent that the public is complaining about the content of the story, the paper’s complaints are justified. The Arnold hit piece addressed a legitimate topic. The paper did a thorough job. The allegations are credible.

But the serious questions I discuss above remain unanswered. And, most important, this is not an isolated incident. I have documented the biases of the Dog Trainer on these pages for the better part of a year. I have been noting them to friends for a decade. This history is coming home to roost. And I don’t feel sorry for the people there — not one bit.

THE GROPE COUNT: Is now

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:33 am

THE GROPE COUNT: Is now at 15, with 10 of the women revealing their names.

TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:07 am

TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY THINK DEPT.: Ben at Infinite Monkeys, a McClintock supporter (like me), sounds a little resentful over the recent Arnold revelations. He issues the following challenge to Arnold supporters:

Will Schwarzenegger betray Republicans if, in fact, the recall prevails and he wins a plurality of the vote this Tuesday? Sure he will. . . . When the betrayal comes, and it will, some of us aren’t going to let you miserable SOBs forget it. You put your faith in this man. You made the case, which came down to nothing more than “he can win.” Fine. You knew the risks. You’re going to suck it up. All of it. And you don’t get to leave the table until you finish every last morsel of crow.

As some (idiots) said of the Rodney King rioters: I don’t condone this, but I understand the rage.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1789 secs.