Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 10/06/2003 4:32:39 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Who are you going to believe, the LAT or your own ears? The Los Angeles Times' "grope" story is a feather in its cap, in my book, even if it was late. But it doesn't make up for months of generally ponderous, embarrassingly biased and almost willfully misinformed recall coverage. Today, the Times, in the fifth paragraph of its front-page lead recall story, can't even get a key Schwarzenegger quote right, even though it's on video and on the Web. When Tom Brokaw asked A.S. on Dateline last night "So you deny all those allegations about grabbing," Schwarzenegger responded: "No, not all."
He did not respond: "Not at all."
You can view the video clip and hear for yourself. (The clip is about halfway down under the heading "Scwarzenegger fights allegations." The quote at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds into the interview). ... What's the difference between the two quotes? The accurate quote packs more confessional oomph. And in any case it's what he actually said. The Times misquote makes it look as if he's just batting away an unwanted query...
P.S.: The misquote is repeated in Marisa Lagos' LAT story of today. Lagos also follows the Davis camp spin, blowing up into some kind of major turning point a mild net shift in "firmness" in the latest Knight Ridder poll.
Davis did get a boost this weekend: less than a week after two polls showed the recall and Schwarzenegger succeeding by a healthy margin, a Knight Ridder and NBC poll has detected a change in the tides. [Emphasis added.]
In fact, the poll showed the recall winning by 13 points, 54-41. The "tide" shift was a switch in the "definiteness" of the recall support. But oposition to the recall got less "defnite" too, and both conclusions were based on a comparison of weekday numbers with numbers for Friday and Saturday nights (notoriously weird nights for polling because people are out). ... The Davis campaign has grasped at this thin lifeline and, gee, the L.A.Times has too! In contrast, the Contra Costa Times' excellent unspun report on the same poll concludes, "Absent a last-minute surge, voters Tuesday will oust Davis." ... 2:59 P.M.
Schwarzanoia strikes deep: Was Arnold behind the recall all along? Why do I sometimes get a distinct feeling that the series of events leading Arnold Schwarzenegger to the brink of the governorship has been much more of a meticulously-planned operation than we suspect? Let's see:
1) Reporters search for possibly damaging outtakes from the 1977 film Pumping Iron, and they just happen to have been bought by one Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1991 ...
2) Schwarzenegger is plagued by suspicions of anti-Semitism, and his father's Nazi background, and he just happens to donate more than a million dollars to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, whose founder, Rabbi Marvin Hier, just happens to give him a clean bill of health ...
3) Arnold is threatened by a tabloid story in 2001--indeed, it's widely believed that this is one reason he doesn't run for governor back then. But in 2003, all of the American tabloids are under the control of a single corporation, American Media Inc--which just happens to pay $350 million to acquire the muscle magazines of Joe Weider, Arnold's mentor, giving American Media's CEO ample reason to "lay off" Arnold, as Weider actually says the CEO promised to do!
4) A man named George Butler becomes the key source in the Arnold/Adolf brouhaha and many other episodes in Schwarzenegger's life--and he just happens to have gotten a large pile of money from Arnold for the sale of his film, Pumping Iron (see 1, above) ...
5) In September, when "Nazi" charges might be expected to surface, an article just happens to appear in a German Jewish magazine describing how the young Arnold disrupted a neo-Nazi demonstration in Austria.
6) Finally, and most significantly, Schwarzenegger is a social moderate social with a scandalous past who experts predict would lose in a GOP primary to a social conservative. Even if he got the GOP nomination he probably wouldn't survive a long campaign in which his past could be chewed over. But it just happens that, after the regular 2002 campaign (in which Republicans do indeed pass over a popular, moderate social liberal) a recall petition starts up, which qualifies for the ballot and gives Schwarzenegger the sudden, unprecedented opportunity to get elected in a short campaign with no party primary! What luck!
Am I suggesting that Schwarzenegger might have planned the recall from the start to benefit himself? That's absurd--everyone knows the recall was bankrolled by Rep. Darrell Issa, who was intending to run for governor himself. Schwarzenegger only decided to run once the recall had qualified, making the decision almost impulsively before an appearance on the Jay Leno show--and after Senator Dianne Feinstein just happened to drop out and Mayor Richard Riordan just happened to dawdle. ...
Why would I think that this might not have been the biggest streak of favorable coincidence since Eddie Murphy wound up as a U.S. Senator in Distinguished Gentleman?That Schwarzenegger might from the start have been somehow behind the whole recall movement that was his only plausible route to power and might well lead to his election tomorrow? I mean, it's not as if one of the attorneys for Rescue California, Issa's group that gathered signatures to put the recall on the ballot was also Schwarzenegger' attorney in the controversy over his B-1 visa. ...Oh, wait! ...
So, yes, I do think there is a distinct possibility that we're going to wake up some time after October 7 and realize that Schwarzenegger planned this whole thing out like a Hitchcock movie (except for the LAT's unexpected last-minute demonstration of [Spanish slang for "guts"]) ... "I haven't lived my life to be a politician," he says. O.K. Would you believe the last decade? ...
P.S.: I forgot. He married a Kennedy. ...
Bonus tangent: I just noticed something about 2) and 5). When defending Schwarzenegger in the New York Times, Rabbi Hier describes the actor inquiring about his father's membership in the Nazi party.
"Arnold said, 'What did it mean to be a member of the Nazi Party?' " Rabbi Hier recalled. "I explained, 'Look, any son who finds that his father was a member of the Nazi Party is not something to be proud of.' "
But if Arnold had already been righteously breaking up Nazi rallies in the Graz of his youth, why did he need to ask Rabbi Hier what it meant to be a Nazi? Presumably he knew, no? ... 6:23 A.M.
This Bud's for Cruz: I got a taped call from Al Gore last night. There was something strange about it. Here's what it said:
GORE'S VOICE: This is former vice President Al Gore calling to urge you to vote no on the recall. Gray Davis has been a solid progressive governor and deserves to finish out his term. We simply cannot let the right wing Republicans roll back the progress California has been making under Governor Davis. It is very important that you vote no on the recall. Also, as insurance against a strong pro-recall turnout, and to keep a Democrat in the governor's office, continue on the ballot and vote "yes" for Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante to keep the governorship in Democratic hands. So remember, vote no on the recall, and then vote for Cruz Bustamante, who is located on your ballot under the letter "B." Thank you.
WOMAN'S VOICE: Paid for by Progressive Democrats and Independents against the recall. Major funding by Anheuser-Busch.
So what was strange about it?The last line--"Major funding by Anheuser-Busch." What's America's largest brewer doing going to bat for Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante? Is that legal? Maybe so--perhaps the cost is somehow apportioned between the "recall" message and the "Bustamante" message in a way that gets around whatever campaign limits apply. But is it smart? Anheuser-Busch has put its name and its precious brands, nurtured at a cost of billions of dollars, behind two of the most unpopular politicians in the nation's largest state. How does that make business sense? Aren't opponents of Davis and Bustamante--probably a majority of the population--going to think twice about ordering up a Bud? Even if they're only 40 percent of the population, does Anheuser-Busch want to alienate 40 percent of the market? And what about proud "right-wing Republicans"? Don't they drink beer? ... Possible explanation #1: Maybe Anheuser-Busch executives don't know their company's name is being used in the phone calls. But shouldn't they? ... Possible Explanation #2: Or maybe they figure that in heavily Democratic Venice, where I live, most recipients of the call will think more highly of them because of the Gore/Democrat association. (Perhaps they're sponsoring similar phone messages from Tom Selleck targeted at Republicans in Simi Valley.) But that sort of stealth-targeting strategy would depend on nobody writing a story revealing Anheuser-Busch's actions to a larger audience. ....P.S.: First line on the Anheuser-Busch Web site:
Welcome to the world of Anheuser-Busch, where making friends is our business!
Not in Recally Country! ... 2:35 A.M.
| A Recall AND a Fundraiser? I'm toast. |
|---|
 |
| Let's get this over with FAST. Please contribute! |
No more Bud in this home ever again.
This is no surprise if you understand what demographic is their largest customer and the fastest growing consumer group in California.
This was a business decision designed to improve their sales volume. The connection to politics is secondary in that Davis and Bustamante would more likley insure that their primary customer would remain a stable demographic and in fact, continue to increase in size.
Beer was traditionaly the alcoholic beverage of choice of the blue collar worker, consuming the product in a bar as frequently as in the home. The changing social attitudes in California, accelerated by the MADD movement, has shifted the marketing emphasis to package stores and the primary customer is not particularly bothered by the consequences of the newer and much more harsh drunk driving laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
