Thursday, August 7, 2003

A Question About Arnold

Here's a question that I'd like to hear put to prominent Republicans who are backing Arnold S. for governor. This is not intended as a "gotcha" question or an attempt to provoke a slap-fight or anything. I promise you, I'm genuinely interested in hearing a civil, honest answer to this...

We have here a candidate who describes himself as "very liberal" on social issues. He favors gay adoption and certain other gay rights. He favors legalized abortion and some forms of gun control. He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and said he was "ashamed of his party" for its actions in that regard.

He's not only used marijuana, he smoked it on-screen in the documentary, Pumping Iron. There are more than a few reports of him using illegal steroids and of committing sexual harassment against women, even after he got married. He has also obviously been a leading force in the creation of violent movies in recent years and there are full frontal nude photos of him around. (They're probably being scanned and uploaded even as we speak.) Now, I am absolutely not condemning him for all or most of this. I don't know about some of the morals charges and I'm with him on most of the political positions...

...but I'd like to see his Republican backers asked, "If he were exactly the same candidate but a Democrat, would you even think of backing him?"

It seems to me that some of the above facts are not only things that Republicans abhor in a politician but that they cite as indicative of serious moral and character defects. When Clinton was running, we were told that pot-smoking, even way in the past, and messing around on your wife made you such a bad person that you should be disqualified from public office. Often, from people who will probably vote for Arnold, we hear that to not be "pro-life" makes you a baby-killer.

Is it that these things never really mattered? Or that they don't matter if the Republicans have a chance to win the governor's chair? Or that they matter a lot and you're going to vote for Bill Simon, even though he won't win? Or what?

This intrigues me because I think reflex partisanship — especially along the Democrat/Republican divide — is one of the more pernicious elements of our public discourse. Today on MSNBC, I saw Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who seems to be Arnold's political opposite, enthusiastically endorse the guy as just the kind of man we need in office. Meanwhile, Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, came out against the Republican. In both cases, they acted like it meant something that they had come to these views of Mr. Schwarzenegger. How often do politicians not endorse and support along party lines? The candidate in question has to be either going to prison or a former Ku Klux Klan leader.

So that's my question to devout Republicans who intend to vote for Arnold or would if they lived in California: Would you even think of supporting him if he had a "D" after his name?

• Posted at 7:06 PM · LINK

Another Prediction

Okay, I was wrong about Arnold running...but so were some of his closest aides, too. Still, I'll wade in here and make another prediction: It doesn't matter who the governor is after all the sturm und drang is over. Whoever it is is going to solve California's most immediate ills by at least trying to engineer a big tax increase.

Let's recall some history here. In 1966, an actor who had never before held public office convinced voters in this state that we had an economic crisis. The budget was technically balanced but Ronald Reagan argued that this had been accomplished by accounting tricks; that things were really much worse and that incumbent Pat Brown had to be ousted to save the state from total financial disaster. Voters agreed. And when Reagan took office, he immediately went for a massive tax increase — the largest ever in the history of any state. Here's Reagan biographer Lou Cannon describing this. (The full text of Cannon's piece can be found here.)

Reagan loathed tax increases and had promised during the campaign to "squeeze, cut and trim" state government. But Reagan realized immediately that no amount of budget cutting could make up for the shortfall in revenues. Two days after he became governor in 1967, he embraced a tax increase, saying that he did not want to wait "until everyone forgets that we did not cause the problem — we only inherited it."

It worked. The state's financial problems were quickly wiped out. In fact, some said, it worked too well since California wound up with a surplus. Reagan took credit for shrewd fiscal management but he really did not "squeeze, cut and trim." He'd just raised taxes more than necessary. It was later charged (and I don't recall much argument on this point) that it would have been much better for the state if Reagan had asked for a smaller tax increase...and then another later, if necessary. He didn't do this, some said, because he figured he could blame one tax increase on his predecessor but not two.

Okay, tell me why whoever winds up being governor — Arnold, Cruz, John, Larry, Angelyne, Gary, whoever — won't do this. If Davis is booted out, it will more or less become accepted fact that he was an inept governor. Why wouldn't any successor solve their most immediate problem by declaring, "Because of the mess that jerk Gray Davis made, I have no choice but to ask for the Gray Davis Memorial Tax Increase"? And if Davis somehow retains the job, he can say, "Because of the expense of that stupid, unwarranted recall, we need a tax increase. Send your complaints to Darrell Issa." That would be so much easier than trying to solve the problem with a hundred smaller measures, battling over each one and whittling away the deficit a dime at a time.

Reagan managed to prove that tax increases don't affect your popularity if you can blame them on someone else. He never got blamed for that one. This will dawn on whoever winds up running the state after the circus leaves town.

• Posted at 5:29 PM · LINK

Recall Thoughts

For whatever it's worth, I think Gray Davis's chances went from slim to just about none yesterday — as much because of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante entering the race as Arnold Schwarzenegger. This may come down to a horse race between the two people whose last names are the most difficult to spell. If this were a write-in election, neither one of them would stand a chance.

Before yesterday, Davis stood a good chance of making it all about the legitimacy of the recall effort. Even a lot of people who don't like him as governor think the method of removal smells and is a bad precedent. But now instead of discussing that, all anyone's going to be talking about is Arnold, Arnold, Arnold. He lacks experience and is perhaps not prepared to devote 100% of his energy to the job...or so his opponents will say. But he's otherwise a not-unappealing candidate.

Some Democrats will like him because his views are not unlike theirs: He's somewhat pro-choice, somewhat in favor of gun control and gay rights. He even once said he was "ashamed" of his party for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Most Republicans will like him because...well, he's a Republican. Republicans like to win. With the Democrats, lately it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

The entry into the fray of Bustamante further erodes Davis's chances. If you're concerned, like many, that the recall process is a farce, you crave stability. You might have wished that Davis — who probably cannot govern, no matter what — would have just resigned and handed command over to the next guy legally in line. The next guy legally in line is Bustamante. (The way some have interpreted the law, there shouldn't even be a second part to the ballot. It should give voters the option of ousting Davis and if they do, the job goes to Bustamante. I'll bet he thinks that too but thinks the court battles to enforce that would have been endless, would have destablized the state government for a long time, and would have convinced a lot of Californians that he was trying to use a loophole to steal the office.) In any event, the argument will be made that he's somehow entitled to the office.

And it's not over yet. There are court challenges to come and more candidates. According to this report, Riordan was blindsided by Arnold's announcement. Already, you can hear Davis's office whipping up the talking points: Arnold stabbed a friend in the back and then lied about it. (They'd dig up dirt on Larry Flynt but he's already published most of it himself — and with great pride.) And I'll bet you any day now, someone official announces that the cost of the recall election will top $100 million.

Like Leno said the other night, "Here's how bad California looks to the rest of the country: People in Florida are laughing at us."

• Posted at 12:36 PM · LINK

Dave Thomas on Hope

The fine writer-director Vince Waldron writes and directs my attention to this article in which Dave Thomas, who played Bob Hope on all those wonderful episodes of SCTV, talks about getting inside the man. (As Vince notes in his e-mail to me, the article is wrong to call Thomas a "founding member" of Second City but the piece is otherwise very good.)

And since I'm invoking Vince's name, I'll mention that this month's performance by his improv troupe, Totally Looped, takes place this Saturday, August 9, at the Second City Studio, which is on Melrose right next to Budd Friedman's Improv. Starts at 8:00 and the last one I attended made me laugh an awful lot.

• Posted at 10:06 AM · LINK

And the Winner Is...

So far, in the California governor mess, the big winner looks to be Jay Leno. Last night, with Arnold announcing his candidacy, The Tonight Show got a 6.9 rating. This is more than Late Show with David Letterman (3.1) and Nightline (3.0) combined.

Not only that but we'll probably see Jay and his program exploit the recall election for further numbers. Letterman is on the other side of the country, away from the action, and in reruns next week and the week after. Hell, if Leno can just get everyone who's running for governor to watch him, his ratings will be through the roof.

I'm still getting around to writing that piece here about how both Dave and Jay have really started to bore me, by the way. I think both programs have gotten into a rut and show the effects of hosts who are phoning it in. One of these days, I'll elaborate on this thesis.

• Posted at 9:16 AM · LINK

August 8, 2003 • Current • August 6, 2003