The Times Leaks on Arnold: What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?

LA Weekly ^ | 10-6-03 | Bill Bradley

[ambrose]

OCTOBER 3 - 9, 2003

The Times Leaks on Arnold
What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?
by Bill Bradley

Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday’s L.A. Times exposé on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story’s publication, the Weekly has learned from well-informed sources. This knowledge came not only in advance of publication but also before anyone outside a close circle at the Times knew of the story’s timing and particulars.

While the Times insists that its reporting uncovered the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Schwarzenegger, there can be no doubt that advance knowledge of the story was very helpful to Governor Gray Davis’ efforts to retain his office in the recall election.

Meanwhile, Sunday-night tracking polls seem to show the recall and Schwarzenegger running well ahead. Schwarzenegger strategists say their tracking poll shows the recall with a lead in the low double digits, and Schwarzenegger nearly 10 points ahead of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante on the replacement portion of the ballot.

Top strategists for the governor were not available, and Davis spokesman Roger Salazar says he knows no Sunday-night polling numbers from the governor’s campaign.

Back to the blockbuster hit on Schwarzenegger in Thursday’s Times. According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper’s internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative project were very tight-lipped about both the scheduling of the piece and its contents. They discussed the story only with the paper’s senior editors. Although the story did not appear on the schedule, it was reportedly placed in the "write basket," in which other Times editors and reporters can look at upcoming pieces, after hours last Wednesday night, just a few hours before it appeared on the Times Web site.

Even with utmost secrecy surrounding the piece, senior Democratic strategists with long-standing ties to Davis knew not only when the story was coming but also the particulars of what was in it. These strategists felt that the story held the possibility of tipping the election away from Schwarzenegger and of defeating the governor’s recall.

Calls to Times editors on the internal scheduling and handling of the story were referred to the newspaper’s public-relations department. Times spokesman David Garcia said the story was extremely closely held and not shared "with anyone outside the building."

Whether or not the Times received all or part of the story from pro-Davis sources — and the Times continues to vociferously insist that none of the first story, at least, did — the advance knowledge of the story’s timing and particulars enabled Davis and the Democrats to design the closing burst of the anti-recall campaign, which we have seen unfold with an uncanny precision.

I had been very impressed with the alacrity with which Davis and the Democrats seized on the Times story and swiftly pivoted into all-out attack mode. A flurry of press statements and highly coordinated events and advertising involving politicians across the state and in Washington, D.C., ensued. It was remarkably efficient. But if you know what is coming in the news flow and when it is coming, it is much easier to design the close of your campaign.

Incidentally, the paper Monday backed off its previous contention that none of the women in subsequent stories came forward at the urging of Schwarzenegger’s opponents in the wake of the Weekly’s revelation that Jodie Evans, who pushed one of the women to come forward, is not merely the peace activist described by the Times but also a former close colleague of Governor Davis and longtime friend of chief Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland.

In another intriguing bit of Times reporting, Schwarzenegger’s huge rally Sunday outside the state Capitol was not referenced until the 18th paragraph of Monday’s story. The rally was twice as large as the 5,000 people reported by the Times. Of course, observers can vary in crowd estimates. But another element of the reportage was very strange.

"Protesters nearly drowned out the early part of Schwarzenegger’s nine-minute speech with a steady chorus of boos," the Times reported today.

Viewing from the press riser with most of the rest of the press corps, I didn’t hear the protesters. They certainly didn’t drown out Schwarzenegger.

[paulklenk]

If Arnold really has treated women as he is alleged to have, there is NO way we should be supporting him, under any circumstances. It is unfortunate that we don't have another candidate as impressive as he seems to be -- and yes, I really do like, admire, and support Arnold otherwise -- but such a history should preclude him from holding ANY office as a Republican.

I agree it is a slimeball tactic, however it is a clever slimeball tactic that, if true, will make hypocrites out of all Republicans if Arnold is elected.

It is the eleventh-hour nature of these allegations that makes this a slimeball tactic. The public had a right to know this stuff a LONG time ago, so it could investigate the charges and make up its mind far in advance of the election.

I give the Dems credit for being truly evil and slimey, but I also give them credit for being clever. Please explain why should we have Schwarzenegger in our party, since we -- rightly -- denounced Clinton for abusive acts against women? And please, let's not insult moral people by attempting to compare the allegations.

Again -- these are allegations, but we should have known about them a long time ago. And NO decent person should vote into office a person who abuses women.

[Support Free Republic]

"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams -

Make your statement.

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP*!

[Loyal Buckeye]

"...as a seven-week-long investigative project..."

I'm willing to bet it was more like a seven-minute-long project that involved editing an article prepared and submitted to the paper by the Davis campaign.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[fhayek]

Please explain why should we have Schwarzenegger in our party, since we -- rightly -- denounced Clinton for abusive acts against women? And please, let's not insult moral people by attempting to compare the allegations.

At the risk of insulting moral people, I submit that grabbing a woman's ass in Hollywood, in the 70's, by a twenty-five year old man is not in the same class as a man who uses state employees to procure women while he holds public office, who then proceeds to expose himself, and who quite probably commited rape. Look, I'm not giving Schartzenegger a pass, but if the Democrats had no problem with Clinton, Schartzenegger shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

[fhayek]

Uh, make that Schwarzenegger.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

I was gonna complain about the headline, but then I assumed my mind was in the gutter. I think it's missing an apostrophe: The Times' Leaks on Arnold... no, wait, that's not much better...

[Stallone]

The invisible slimy hand of the Clintons works the puppets at the LA Times.

Notice, however, that Schwarzenegger, unlike the unholy phuck Clinton, does not destroy the reputations and character of the women accusers.

NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH EVIL. KILL IT.

A message to McClintock supporters:

If you had any doubts about the evil that is the Socialist Enemies of America (aka Democrats), you have witnessed it in the past 7 days like never before.

This is WAR.

You are either FOR the 'Rats Clinton and Davis, or you are AGAINST them. There is no middle road.

Schwarzenegger now represents the Enemy of the vilest Enemies of America, the rapist and his battleaxe wife, the daughter of Satan.

VOTE AGAINST THE CLINTONS. VOTE FOR SCHWARZENEGGER.

IF YOU WANT TO LIVE.

[daviddennis]

Compare him to the way Gray Davis treats employees, and he actually looks pretty good.

The actual, current employees of Arnold love the man.

He probably got into the habit of groping women because most of the women being groped responded favourably. Even the women who have now come forward admit they didn't complain at the time.

I think that's a long way from Bill Clinton's sins. And, frankly, Bill's worst sins were not sexual, they were his compulsive dishonesty that was best demonstrated by his comments on sexual matters.

D

[Hunble]

In the age of the proverbial Hollywood "casting couch", Arnold should have been awarded a medal for outstanding behavior!

[Parley Baer]

How many of the women groped Arnold??? Being new in this country he may have thought that was the American way. Parley

[Stallone]

Good God. Someday, Conservatives will awaken to the key to the success of political power in America.

What is the key?

Read on to find out, if you dare.

Schwarzenegger's got it. Reagan had it. Dad Bush did not and lost. McNader doesn't have a chance. Senate leader Lott and now Frist were AWOL on this quality, and it has seriously undermined the Bush administration because of their lack of it. Buckley, in spite of his intellect, never had it. Neither does Will. But Rush - the man practically invented it and sweats it from every pore. Miller's got it. Coulter? Oh yeah, she carries the torch proudly. It saved the 2000 election, and is the only thing that will save America.

Does W. Bush have it? Yes, but he's reluctant to use it unless he feels he must, when it is sometimes too late. He needs to get it front and center, flat out, no holds barred. He is isolated by advisors who do not have this quality, nor understand how important it is.

What is it?

No, it's not the Segway.

It is the Power of the Warrior Crusader, the fierce and menacing street-wise take no enemies Freeper Conservatives.

Freepers are largely responsible for taking back the election in 2000 with grassroots robust protests and effective dissemination of the truth at a time when our entire lives and futures could have turned on a more passive approach.

Like our forefathers who created this great nation, Warrior Freepers share a burning desire to protect and advance freedom and liberty in the world, and to expose and destroy the Evil of creeping Socialism. We have a deep, immovable passion for America, and we are Good.

It is my opinion that the foremost quality for nominating a candidate for future political office in the new millennium is simply this (to paraphrase Elaine on Seinfeld:) IS THAT CANDIDATE WARRIOR FREEPER WORTHY?

If not, no amount of intelligence, qualification, or experience can make up a lack of this quality.

Almost nothing else matters. To be a Trent Lott sitting-duck, or a Bill Frist debating with the demagogues Schumer and Rangel, you need to be a courageous fighter first and foremost to penetrate the left-wing media conspiracy, withstand and anticipate the lies and deception of the Socialists, and get in the faces of the voters.

The Liberal Liars rely on the good-natured and pious polite intelligent conservatives of years past when they spread their deception and shamelessness across the air waves directly to the voters.

But now, Warrior Freepers are holding these weasels accountable, by their throats.

You are either WARRIOR FREEPER WORTHY, or you are not a qualified Conservative candidate.


WARRIOR FREEPERS RULE THE EARTH.

[fhayek]

Right on! But cut down a little on the coffee.

[DallasMike]

Warrior Freeper. I kind of like it.

[JOE6PAK]

L.A. "DEMOCRAT" Times.

[ambrose]

The reporting from Bill Bradley has been great. And he's right about the Democrats knowing this would be coming.

Several weeks ago, Gray Davis had promised a big surprise in the final week of the campaign, and he delivered. What a stink bomb.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Isn't there a rule against spamming threads with the same off-topic idiocy?

Your liberal Candidate said it best- you need to switch to decaff.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

What did the Republicans know and when did they know it?

I think that is a better question, and cuts to the heart of the matter. Why are the Powers That Be making fools and hypocrites of so many at the grass root and Talk Radio level, to defend someone who they knew had tons of skeletons in his closet, and lose their moral high ground, simply for the erronious precept that (R)nold was so darn "electable"

If that were true, Mr Hatch, why didn't you reject him when he came to Wilson's people before the Tonight Show and spare us the contradiction that the Left will never let all of us live down? I would appreciate it. I don't even support (R)nold in the least, and I will still be suffering for your miscalculation... Forget bashing Clinton on his Lewinsky, you've all lost the dinner party/water cooler arguement before you start it.