|
|
R.W.
Bradford on the Clintonian governor of California.
Terminating the Democratic Machine by Ralph Reiland
A Nazi groper, running the fifth-largest economy on the
planet? I mean, this time you gotta see why left-liberals are mad!
| | Ralph
Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris
University. |
|
Nixon was one thing, with the hiring of burglars and all to lift McGovern's
secrets, and the bombing of Cambodia on the sly — and goofy, like when he'd
shoot his arms straight up in the air like a giant V, I guess for Victory (or
maybe it was a big human Y, for Yes), but at least Nixon didn't pronounce it
"Collifornia," and he didn't grab up a Kennedy woman for his own. No, this time
it's worse. I saw the nude Arnold photos on Drudge. Nixon wouldn't even walk
along the surf without wearing his suit and tie, and dress shoes.
And I can empathize with left-liberals on why it was bad during Reagan. Sure,
they snickered at the beginning. Here's a guy with no economics courses from
Harvard. But then inflation dropped from 13.5 percent to 1.9 percent and it was
harder to keep up the laughs. Harder still when unemployment fell from 9.7
percent to 5.3 percent.
And the Communist thing wasn't so easy for liberals under Reagan. No one at
Yale in 1982 was saying that the Soviet Union was ready to collapse, or that it
was "evil," or that democracy was going to toss Communism on the ash heap of
history. And yet here's a guy from "Bedtime for Bonzo" who gets it right, on all
three counts.
Still, that was all easier for left-liberals than what's going on now in
California. Reagan's dad was no storm trooper, on the wrong side, and Reagan
never told a story about how he and the boys got bucked up behind the curtain
before going out on stage, and no one at the gym came forward to say that Reagan
said blacks weren't sharp enough to run South Africa.
And I can understand why left-liberals hate George W., straight from those
days of the hanging chads right up to when our troops just shot past the Baghdad
museum and didn't even bother to stop and make sure no one was looting any old
pots. But still, bad as that all is, Bush has never been caught tossing
subordinates up in the air and carrying them above his head into the men's room,
and, far as I know, Bush has never said that you've got to give it to Hitler for
the way he whipped up those crowds at the Nuremberg stadium.
The lesson in all this? For all those accusations and last minute pop-ups
against Schwarzenegger, it wasn't clear on election day how much of it was true
and how much was just trash politics. What is clear is that the mud balls didn't
stick. Voters seemed more interested in cleaning up Sacramento than in electing
Mr. Clean. And, hopefully, what that might mean, if the media guys are paying
attention, is that we're going to see a lot less mud in the next election.
Another lesson, and one that's not such good news for the Democrats, is that
Republicans can now see what's in a winning ticket, even in Democratic
strongholds, like with Giuliani in New York and now with Schwarzenegger in
California. What won in both cases is a policy mix of fiscal conservatism and
social liberalism, a position that's consistent, i.e., consistently libertarian,
in that it seeks to put a lid both on how much the government can grab out of our
wallets and on the regulations and laws that mandate how we live.
In Schwarzenegger's case, that comes down to a stance that's pro-business and
anti-tax, a perspective that's pro-choice on abortion and supportive of gay civil
unions. It's a position that sees free-spending legislators as the problem, not
individual freedom.
Bottom line: it looks like this isn't, as they say, your father's Oldsmobile.
Under the headline "The New Republican Party?", here's how Sacramento Bee
columnist Daniel Weintraub described the scene on the steps of the capitol the
day before the election: "Arnold Schwarzenegger plays guitar while Twisted Sister
singer Dee Snider sings the campaign anthem, 'We're Not Gonna Take It.'" The
rally at the state capitol drew about 10,000 supporters and was a rainbow of
ages, races, and social statuses.
No wonder the Democrats fear Schwarzenegger.
30 Ways to Lose Your Governor by Stephen Cox
Here are 30 things I will always remember about the
California recall election:
| | Stephen
Cox is professor of literature at UC-San Diego.
|
|
- Gov. Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis Jr., now deposed, referring to the
recall as a "joke."
- Former Gov. Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis Jr.,
dismissing "this recall" as "just a buncha sour grapes by a buncha losers."
- The organized bodies of businessmen who passed resolutions deploring the
recall campaign, and who sent their spokesmen to visit the media to laugh at the
idea that a governor who had racked up a $38 billion deficit might not be good
for business.
- The 20 high officials of the University of California who,
four months ago, looked back at me like restless dachshunds when I asked how they
thought the recall would affect the university. One of them mentioned that he'd
heard on National Public Radio that there wouldn't be a recall. Another said that
we'd wait and see if there was one. There was one, all right.
- The
Democratic operatives who assured the media that their secret polling data
inspired great confidence in the governor's survivability, and whose assurances
were routinely headlined by the press and the three established networks, right
up to the end.
- Chris Matthews, famed for his lifelong experience as a
political insider, who predicted on the eve of the election that Gov. Davis would
survive and that Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the only man whom
Californians detested more than Gov. Davis, would beat Arnold Schwarzenegger in
the gubernatorial replacement vote. Final vote tally, recall question: Yes,
55.3%. Final vote tally, gubernatorial replacement question: Arnold
Schwarzenegger, 48.7%; Cruz Bustamante, 31.7%.
- The Los Angeles Times'
contention that the timing of its publication of "groping" charges immediately
before the election was for reasons other than the difficulty of locating, among
the casts of thousands who have hung out on Schwarzenegger's movie sets during
the last three decades, enough females willing to make anonymous charges against
him.
- CNN's expert on the media, who, when asked if there might be anything to
the public's idea that the Times had simply lain in wait to smear Schwarzenegger,
replied (I swear to God, this is what he said), "I haven't read the stories
involved, but I've talked to the editors. . . . It went through the natural
journalistic process."
- The woman who showed up at a feminist rally against
Schwarzenegger to voice her outrage against him for grabbing her behind and
telling her that she had "a nice ahs," a quarter of a century ago.
- Sen.
Joseph Lieberman, oft called the Conscience of the Senate, responding to the
last-minute attacks on Schwarzenegger's reputation: "You know, after reading in
the paper this morning about the pill popping and skirt chasing and Hitler
praising, it would be very tempting to point out Republicans' hypocrisy on
values. But would it be right to do? Absolutely."
- Peter Camejo, gubernatorial
candidate of the Green Party, the party of principle, defender of civil liberties
and equality for all, discussing the last-minute allegations, largely anonymous,
against his opponent: "If he were a black man, he'd be in jail. If he was brown,
he'd be in jail. If he were a poor white he'd be in jail. What does it tell us
about our society that a rich white person can do the type of things that he's
alleged to have done?"
- The news personality on MSNBC who on election day
referred, in her best reportorial manner, to "Arnold Schwarzenegger's victims."
- Gov. Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis Jr., solemnly weighing the accuracy of the
largely anonymous charges against his opponent: "Are all 15 women and their
families lying?"
- The voters who refused, for once, to take any such nonsense
seriously.
- The servants of the established media, who assumed, as always,
that the voters did, would, must take it seriously.
- Gov. Davis' complaint
that the recall election would cost $60 million, $70 million, or $80 million
(various figures were cited) — at a time when the state was paying $29
million a day to finance the monstrous debts needlessly incurred by his
administration.
- The name of Gov. Davis' leading front group: Californians
Against the Costly Recall.
- CNN Headline News, identifying the recall as "the
election, which is costing $55 million."
- Leading Democrats' insistence that
recall elections, formerly a central plank in the progressive platform, were
plainly "undemocratic," since they might result in the deposition of a sitting
governor.
- Gov. Davis' insistence that the recall election was an "insult" to
the "eight million voters" who had made him governor. Final vote tally, 2002
gubernatorial election: Davis, 3,533,490; 47.3% of total votes cast.
- Gov.
Davis' insistence that, because of him, California's "environment is the best in
the nation," a statement that sent Californians scurrying to their encyclopedias,
to discover when Montana had seceded.
- Gov. Davis' attempt to rally voters by
signing a bill allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses, one of the
most unpopular pieces of legislation in California history — thus putting
the lie to the old saw that the Republicans are the Stupid Party.
- Gov.
Davis' attempt to enhance his credibility with an ad campaign based on the
endorsements of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, nationally discredited politicians.
- Gov. Davis' attempt to start a bandwagon by running Clinton-endorsement ads
on the same right-wing radio shows that specialized in attacking both him and
Clinton.
- Gov. Davis, believing that his goose was cooked unless he savaged
the Democratic lieutenant governor who ran against Schwarzenegger in the
replacement race, suggesting in a matter-of-fact way: "He [Schwarzenegger]
happens to be the alternative. He's going to win Question Two. If people don't
want him to be governor, then the alternative is to allow me to complete the
term."
- CNN, commenting on the concession speech of a governor famous for his
merciless trashing of opponents: "No matter what your politics are, you have to
have a pang of sympathy."
- Chris Matthews, commenting on the concession
speech of a governor famous for his merciless trashing of opponents: "Most people
don't realize, there's a lot of graciousness in politics. He thanked everyone,
everyone who'd worked for him."
- Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez,
turning eagerly on Davis after his defeat, and blaming the disaster on his
willingness to work with Republicans.
- The governor's contention, throughout
the campaign, that although the state is $38 billion in the red, "we do not have
a budget deficit. The budget is balanced." He did not explain that the books were
"balanced" by massive borrowing.
- My discussion, after the election, with a
prominent member of San Diego's institutional elite, who told me that he had
intended to vote for Schwarzenegger, then decided to vote for Bustamante instead.
"But," I stammered, "Bustamante is a bigot and a spendthrift. His campaign was
bought and paid for by the Indian gambling industry. He's also stupid. And he's
spent years criticizing the outfit you work for."
"Well, yes," he smiled.
"I'm a liberal, though. I voted no on the recall, too."
"You voted no!
You voted to keep a guy in office who claimed that California doesn't have a
deficit!"
"The governor claimed that? When?"
"In his last speech!
In a lot of his speeches!"
"Well, we don't have a deficit. The budget's
balanced."
"That's because we're borrowing billions of dollars to make it
'balanced'!"
"So the governor wasn't lying, then." He said it with a
smile of satisfaction.
This man, an economist by profession, is one of
the most intelligent and competent executives I know. He is also, very obviously,
a citizen of that other world, the world where logic need not come, the world of
the ruling class — the officials and bureaucrats, the educationists, the
standard media, the complacent rich.
On October 7, however, this world
had its way.
|
|
|
|
