A California DU'ers View of the Recall Election

[Flying_Pig]

Well, the deed is done. The unions, Hispanics, and others the Dems thought were going to help them pull off a save, deserted the party. California will now be an international laughing stock, as "The Terminator" moves into the governor's mansion. Bush, Rove, and their minions, will now attempt to control the political apparatus of California, using "Ahnold" as their front man. They will also attempt to finish what they started with the California "energy crisis", and gut the state, just as they are doing to the nation.

How could this happen in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic? Well, here's the view of someone (me), who has 35 years experience in politics and the media business (listed in order of impact):

1. Grey Davis was/is, perhaps one of the most ineffectual public speakers ever to hold a political office in this entire country. How he got as far in politics as he did, is amazing to me. In this era of "media candidates", Davis was almost painful to watch (for us Democrats), as he meekly pounded a podium to make a point, and spoke with all the conviction of a wet, limp, noodle.

Add to his lackluster (understatement) campaigning abilities, he also managed to overlook a brewing anger in the electorate. He ignored it, hoping it would go away, never a smart thing for a politician to do.

2. He was wrongly accused (fostered by the Bush/Rovians) of leading the state down the tubes. Fact is, what started it, not only for California, but also nationally, was California's phony "energy crisis". This boondoggle allowed Enron, and other "Bush friends", to suck tens of billions from the state. Davis had nothing to do with this. He was not in office when the energy deregulation laws were passed, ...a Republican (Wilson) was.

Still, Davis got the blame for it all. His mistake, was not going on the offensive enough, and laying the blame where it should have gone: Enron, and Bush/Cheney. He let them skate, rarely publicly laying blame on them. I have always wondered, why? Was Davis in Enron's pocket too? If not, then why wasn't he screaming his fool head off, as they destroyed California's economy, which then led to a national economic meltdown? He failed here, big time.

3. California has a terrible law that requires a 2/3 vote to pass a budget. Because of this, it takes the votes of several Republicans to pass the bills. This year, the Republicans banded together to choke the operation of the government, as they refused to raise taxes enough to allow the state to pay its bill properly, and to fund existing programs. I have no doubt that Bush/Rove were behind this, in a concerted attempt to "overthrow" California state government, and in aiding and abetting the coup that was the recall election. The Republicans did all they could to set Davis up. Davis' meek protestations about this, came off as shrill and meek.

4. The press coverage about Ahnold's peccadillos, backfired. Davis was warned not to run a "dirty" campaign", and seemingly, he ran cleaner than he usually does this time. But, whether he was behind the latest revelations about Arnie or not, he was blamed for them, and the voters rebelled, because they are sick of this type of politicking.

5. The media. The media coverage of the candidates, and Davis (who technically, was not a candidate), was overwhelmingly in favor of Ahnold. Even liberal icons like the San Francisco Chronicle fawned over him, though they did not endorse him. In this case, rather than the media doing the bidding of their Republican masters, I think they just felt , that over the next couple of years, they could sell a lot more newspapers, with Arnie in office, than Davis. Self-serving interests at work, more than ideological concerns.

In the end though, the #1 factor was Davis' "Pink-tutu" image. No one in this state could envision sitting down and having a beer with Davis. He just wasn't that kind of guy. He was a milk-toast hetero, with an image softer than a pile of cotton balls, that neither women, nor men, could get excited about. When times are tough, people want a leader they feel can lead. Davis had already proven he couldn't lead the legislature in getting the people's business done. He failed, and he was punished for it.

There are some very important lessons here for the Dems nationally. Number one, is the party damned well better get a solid, strong, populist voice for its nominee, someone who can fight just as dirty, and as well, as the Republicans, or they're going to lose their ass. At present, we've got national leadership very similar to Gray Davis. Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al, all come off as weak, ineffectual, pink-tutu politicians, and in these times of turmoil, terrorism, and dissension, the voters are not going to trust them to solve the nation's problems. especially those that concern the security of the country.

Right now, we've got a bunch of "Barney Fifes" playing to Bush's John Wayne, and in the shoot out at the OK Corral of American politics at this point in time, "Barney" ain't the horse people are going to put their money on.

If we're going to have a chance at all of restoring the Democratic party to leadership in this country, we're going to have to fight just as hard, and just as nasty, as the Republicans. Failure to do so, is as good as handing everything over to the Republicans on a silver platter. The California recall election proved this point very well.

We need to overhaul the party, top to bottom (hear that Terry McAullife?), and put in some fighters. No DINO's, pink tutu's, or Republican-Lites need apply. We fail in 04', and this country is toast, and so is the Democratic Party. We need to start fighting like it's for all the marbles, ...because it is.

[Mistress Quickly]

1. I just don't understand

why a strong electable Dem wasn't put up instead of Davis? That has got to be frustrating to all the Dems out there. Who were Democrats supposed to vote for?



on edit, I changed my mind and didn't :think:

[Dookus]

8. the sad fact....

is that California is basically a political black hole. With 35 million people, our top Dems and top Repubs are all lame.

We had 8 years of Deukmejian, 8 years of Wilson, 5 years of Davis: All total bores.

We have some great folk in the congressional delegation, but they don't seem interested in state government. Plus, our silly term-limit law makes it hard for new people to develop a big following.

I've lived here for 19 years, and I'm continually unimpressed by the political options presented to me.

[Flying_Pig]

17. Agreed Dookus....

It amazes me, how a state as big, and diverse as California, can contain so many lame politicos. Is there as school or something that hatches these lame bastards?

[salin]

25. Maybe this opens the door for the Dem state senator

who led the charge and pushed the investigations on the energy manipulatin long before any manipulation was "proven". From Orange County? Much more articulate than Davis. Sadly the name escapes me.

[joefree1]

39. Or another recall

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. The Dems were in a Catch-22

They couldn't put up a viable candidate for a number of reasons. First, if the party supported someone other than Davis, it would have given legitimacy to the recall and would have been a betrayal of Davis. They tried to make the best of it with Vote No on the Recall/Yes the Bustamante, but that was a no win either. If anyone in the state of CA could possible have less charisma than Davis, it was Bustamante.

Couple those handicaps, with the millions of dollars worth of free, constant media coverage that Arnie got and you have a machine that is almost impossible to beat.

However, I do believe that this house of cards that Arnie has teamed up with, will come tumbling down soon, and he can go down with them.

Have faith because all things must pass.

[salin]

24. Flash back to 1998

No democrat had been elected to the governor's office in 16 years.

The primary offered an interesting, but untried democrat (tech person, can't remember the name); Centrist Jane Harman (not really known in the northern part of the state); and Gray Davis - who was lt. Governor (remember California elects Gov and Lt GOv seperately - so can be different parties) - had won a number of state wide elections. So the 'safe' choice, even if it was the bland choice, was to go with the guy who 'could win'.

Helped that there was fatigue with the republican governors, that Wilson was seen as having gone centrist to extremist, and that the GOP nominee (then state Atty General Lungren) was perceived to be even more extreme than Wilson.

[arwalden]

2. Hmmm... Interesting Observations!!

Thanks for the insights.

-- Allen

[Dookus]

3. Davis *IS* a down-and-dirt fighter...

always has been.

And it's been pointed out time and time again, we can fight for the 3% on the far left, OR we can fight for the 20% in the middle.

I prefer to win.

[demsrule4life]

6. Yes

The majority of Americans are in the middle and tend to shy away from either the far right or left. The party needs to come to terms with this and get the "beer drinkers" back into their fold.

[Flying_Pig]

12. Davis was "down and dirty" BEHIND the scenes, and in this age

of media candidates, that simply is not going to cut it. How many times do we need to lose before Democratic knuckleheads are going to understand this?? Two major elections were factored by this. Gore came off like Davis too. Both lost, and yeah, I know all about the stolen election, but Gore SHOULD have had a several million vote margin, and didn't, because he came off as a lightweight. It wasn't his fault, but the Republican media got away with painting him like that.


As far as winning the presidency goes, at this point I don't much care if it's a "left" or "middle" candidate, as long as it is someone who can kick ass, and take names. It appears to me (and I am still on the fence), that Dean and Clark represent our best hope right now to have some true brawlers, and that's what we need!

[KoKo]

26. Clark strikes you as a "brawler?" No way. Now if he was Barry McCaffrey

I could see that. McCaffrey is a Man's Man General. He could take on Bush, if he were a Democrat and didn't support the war. But, Wes Clark is really more laid back and quiet in his deameanor.

[Flying_Pig]

30. Clark may not be cro-magnon, but he's got enough hair on his

chest to whip G.W.'s ass. I have a feeling, that given the opportunity, Clark could rip Bush a new one, and right quick. Yes, his up front demeanor is "gentlemanly", as befits a Rhodes scholar general, but the man is a trained fighter too.

[janx]

40. Barry McCaffrey is a riot. Sometimes he gets so wound up!

!

[Piperay]

4. I'm a Californian too

and I have to say that your insights are directly on point. Thanks for posting them.

[Piperay]

16. Also Davis didn't kiss

enough Hollywood butt. Anymore a politcian has to kiss celebrity ass otherwise they will find one who will, even if they have to get one of their own put into office. :puke:

[edzontar]

5. I can't wait to see how Groperboy will "clean house"

By repealing the car tax and increasing the deficit.

If he has to lay off hundreds or thousands of state workers, cut his beloved educational programs, increase tuitions at the UC system, etc...he will only hurt the CA economy even more.

[forgethell]

31. That's the kind of stuff

we are doing in Alabama because our tax increase proposal didn't pass. Pretty tough on state employees who need those jobs, same as the rest of us.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I agree and disagree

I agree with most of it but I disagree with #4. I don't think it backfired, it came too late. The immediate response from the Republicans were that these women were opportunists. There wasn't enough time to counter that. I think the Hitler thing backfired. Also, not enough time for the Arnold/Enron connection to get out.

The DNC/DLC backed Davis because he's a "team player." Art Torres, as much as I love the guy's fight, is DNC all the way. Basically, we had to play our hand and that hand was Davis -- not a popular governor even among Democrats.

Another factor that a lot of people don't see is the infighting within the California Democratic party. It goes beyond the DINO's verses the base -- it's the power plays and the grandstanding and the territorial fights that go on internally. It's most evident between Bustamante and Davis but it goes from the top down. I won't get into detail but I witnessed several in my own area WHILE the rest of us were working HARD doing a massive GOTV effort. It took focus away from the task at hand.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Three things won this vote (from an insider)

1. Racism..Arnold played the "illegal immigrant drivers' license card" and the Indian Casino card. REPEATEDLY IN HIS COMMERCIALS.

2. Cruz Bustamante and Ritchie Ross's division of the Democratic party in the state along with their division of the resources and his pathetic campaign.

3. HOURS of free press and radio devoted to Arnold. We would have needed 100 million dollars to compete with it dollar for dollar, minute per minute.

[Flying_Pig]

23. I agree with some of this, but wouldn't you say that Davis' complete

lack of telegenics and pink-tutu aura, was the #1 factor in his downfall? Had he been a strong leader, and projected a strong image, he could have pulled the legislature along, by having the media on his side, and there wouldn't have been a recall at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Davis went soft because the party was calling for it

Frankly, I think we would have seen a far different campaign and it would have been difficult for Arnold to overcome if Davis had played his own game. He got Riordan (one of the most likable Republicnas in the state) defeated by his own party.

[salin]

36. I agree

but not just during the campaign - relentlessly throughout the term. It is a very sad state of affairs to think that campaigning on the hard level may now become required throughout a term. Forget actually running the state. And that - has been the model perfected by boygeorge.

[salin]

29. New thought - Policy/Political player - but not 24/7 'party wars'

I only lived there for the beginning of the Davis era, but have followed California news since I moved.

Perhaps a difference is that for the 4 years (then 8 months) that Davis was Governor, he was not taking part of each day to play public/media political warfare. He was not framing to play in the media each challenge as Wilson failed policy. He was not challenging the republicans to a grudge/deathmatch each day on each issue.

He was instead - running the state. Reeling from crisis to crisis (inherited or manipulated). Also doing the regular cut deals (to get legislation through), and operating in regular state office manner (at least in other states). Reserving pulling out the ugly side (political warfare) only for the campaigns. In this past this was not an uncommon way to govern.

But Wilson played it differently. When I moved there he was in a big ole public fight with Washington and the Dems - made it public. First he wanted more money back to pay for services for illegal immigrants - when this hit resonance with the public - it got turned into a very ugly campaign theme and ballot initiative - not to get money back - but to not have to pay - and play the race/fear card to get votes. He was pulling crap like this all the time.

Maybe Davis did as well, but just didn't get picked up. Or the lack of charisma hurt the ability to get public attention on the battle.

Point being, I agree with the points raised about campaigners. And am sadly coming to see that in some states and contexts (would back fire other places) that the combative, grandstanding political framing and fingerpointing throughout the term of office may be what (sadly) the public responds to. Reagan did it - but through sarcastic humour rather than body piercing bullet rhetoric - but he set the tone for the constant vilification of all things democrat. Bush1 was less successful at it. Newt made it an artform. Bush2 plays it strongly.

What a depressing thought.

[Flying_Pig]

38. That's a good take Salin...

Davis, by staying behind the scenes so much, was not out fighting where people could see him. But then, as I've pointed out, his demeanor was so weak, his style of fighting came off more as "neener, neener", than a one-two punch.

We need Democratic brawlers, period. I know this assaults the sensitivities of many, but the majority of Americans are not as educated and genteel as most DU'ers, or the Democratic elite. While many of us like a nice Chardonnay, there's a hell of a lot of beer drinkers out there, that respect a solid and dirty fighter. Let's give them one, and one who speaks not just to our mutual concerns, but their's in particular.

[Suziq]

10. I So Agree.

It's about time Dems put their money where their mouth is. Prominent people in California had no problem speaking out regarding the Bush misadministration and his policies and how they effect California, but do not back up their statements with $$$$$, which is what it takes these days (unfortunately). Pukes have no problem forking over the dough to achieve their goals.

Enron - where was the outrage from Californians!!!! Did not hear a thing about it during this joke of a campaign. The media had Ahnold "selected" from the jump.

I am hopeful this is a wake-up call to Dems - you have to fight fire with fire.

:hippie:

[harrison]

11. I could not understand why Enron wasn't made the issue in this

whole mess. What a perfect symbol of a Republican control. It seems to me that if Davis and pounded and pounded the whole energy crisis and the Enron issue, then Californians surely would have paid attention.

[opihimoimoi]

18. Yup, we Dems must learn from this. Time for new coaches

The ones we got have a losing streak too long.

[FauxNewsBlues]

19. Enron funded Gray Davis

They gave him $800,000 last year alone. The only politician in the country who has received more Enron money than Chimpy over the years is Gray Davis.

They gave him a bunch of money, and then proceeded to screw him.
That is why Arnold's ties to Enron was a non player. Gray Davis couldn't attack heavy on this issue because he took so much loot from them as well.

[pippin]

41. because apparently,

"Davis supported a terrible electricity deregulation plan, refused to challenge the big private power companies during the energy crisis that followed, and then signed foolish long-term contracts that cost the state billions. He's cut money for schools (infuriating the teachers unions that strongly supported him) to build prisons (helping the only group that seems to get anything out of him, the prison guards union). He's taken huge campaign contributions from banks and insurance companies and then vetoed or helped kill a series of immensely popular pro-consumer privacy bills. He took the unprecedented step of using his own campaign money to interfere in the Republican primary, ensuring that moderate Richard Riordan wouldn't be challenging him for governor.

Now, when he needs friends so desperately, he's discovering that he doesn't have many left. If the latest polls are any indication, there's a very good chance Davis will be recalled from office . . . the Democratic Party has done exactly what the Davis camp wants. No credible Democrat has stepped forward to appear on the ballot. It's a strategic game: Davis's campaign advisors say they can better defeat the recall if there are no Democrats running and it can be portrayed as a purely partisan effort. That way the Davis operatives can do what they're good at and attack the GOP without trying to defend the incumbent's record. . .

We're not big fans of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but the polls show she would crush any GOP candidate. So, presumably, would Attorney General Bill Lockyer, or former representative Leon Panetta, or a number of others."


This is not Monday morning quarterbacking but an article written July 23,2003. I don't know what the political orientation of the SF Guardian is, but there are some points Dems seem to have either overlooked or simply ignored.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/43/news_ed_gray.html

[fizzana]

14. My thoughts exactly

In a sense it was a perfect storm for the Democrats.

An unpopular yet complacent governor, a telegenic superstar opponent who was untouchable and one of the lamest campaigns I've ever seen by both Davis and Bustamante.

Bear in mind that if Riordan had been the GOP candidate in the last gubernatorial election Davis would have been long gone.

I backed him 100% yesterday but I haven't liked him in years and a part of me is shedding no tears to see him go.

BTW, Arnold's first test will be the car tax. It can only be rolled back if the State replaces the lost revenue with another source. This was how Pete Wilson set off this time bomb. The average Californian is totally clueless about the set up with the car tax. They'll be pissed when they find out Arnold can't just roll it back as he promised.

[Q]

15. Notice that Enron and the phony energy 'crisis'...

...never became an issue?

- Need any more proof that the Neocons own the media?

[Flying_Pig]

21. Interestingly, both the S.F. Chronicle and the L.A. Times, the state's

two biggest papers, had really good, and lengthy, investigative articles on the matter, but it just never caught on with the electorate, and the Democratic Party failed (perhaps some were in Enron's pocket?) to pound the issue enough to keep it front and center.

Part of it, is that there was never anything on television about it. People these days want their news in 5-minute TV and radio bites, and aren't sitting down to read ten paragraphs of a three-part series on a subject. I would bet that not 20% of Californians have any inkling of the extent of the crimes thatwere committed against them by Bush/Cheney/Enron. I've been working this issue for three years, and have written hundreds of letters, and made hundreds of phone calls, and no one seems to give a shit. They must LIKE getting screwed!

Ignorance is bliss..... Don't bother me, Hollywood Squares in on!

[davsand]

27. I knnow there are links to Enron and the Cal energy mess.

Can you give me a link to a couple articles that lay it out? I know a guy who swears that Enron had nothing to do with any of the Energy crisis.

Thanks!

Laura

[Flying_Pig]

28. There is extensive information on that right here on DU...

in the archives. You can also Google, "California Enron Energy Crisis", and come up with all you'll need.

[MGKrebs]

20. The "drama" factor.

I also suspect that there is a bit of the "drama" factor involved. I think it's possible that a lot of people who don't normally pay much attention to politics, might vote for someone like Ahnold just because it's entertaining.

Some people I talk to here in Georgia, when you start talking about politics, they eventually just say something like "well, they're all crooked", or "they all lie". Why would someone like this vote for another "politician"?

It's almost like a vote for a third party, except with the chance of winning. Perhaps the repubs do this on purpose- encourage "outsiders" to run. Much of their base is anti-government anyway.

As I write this, I am thinking that a lot of this really might be for a third party. Much of the current neocon agenda is not traditionally conservative, it is radical (dare I say it?), fascist. Are we witnessing the takeover of the repub party? Will they eventually split?

edit: I see Sean reynolds has posted a similar idea here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=492307

[trof]

22. Great post, esp. #1.

Molly Ivins said (comparing Davis to Mr. Rogers)he made Mr. Rogers look like he was on steroids.

I never paid any attention to Davis until the recall. Every time I saw him I cringed. Zero charisma, zero personality, and trying SO hard to have some it was painful to watch.

What repub did he beat to win last time? Must have been a quadruple loser.

[mike_c]

32. excellent analysis, FP....

Davis was doomed from the very beginning-- he is the consummate shadow man. The real issue for me is the dems insistence on running centrist, inoffensive, shades-of-gray candidates whose only real passion seems to be for corporate and special interest fund-raising. In that, the recall was November 2002 redux.

Note that this circus wasn't all the repigs' fault. Democrats also signed the recall petition, and democrats also voted yes on the recall. No doubt some democrats (early estimates were 20 percent) also voted for Arnold. The democratic party needs to be asking itself how it failed those voters. Other democrats voted for Huffington, or Camejo (most people I know are dems, and many of them-- myself included-- voted for Camejo). What did Gray and Bustamante not offer those voters? My sense is passion and populism, and a ringing liberal message that went beyond "vote for me."

[forgethell]

33. What I want to know

is why DON'T we have some strong, effective leaders?? There are a lot of people in the Democtratic Party. They aren't all wimps. Where are the leaders??!

[salin]

35. Per media coverage... what would the impact have been

if a) Conan and all arnie films weren't shown throughout the race; and more importantly if b) after each news item about arnie... the commentators looked to the camera and said... "interesting event... but we still haven't learned anything about his program or how he intends to do anything". I believe that the public would have come to view the race as an 'oddity'... and a novelty.

Flash to instead - glamor press through movies, interviews, etc.

and b) news coverage that highlighted the empty slogans but didn't question the ... we still don't know what he is going to do to fix things.

It shaped the way the public viewed this.

Now California will get to endure a Jesse Ventura type period with embarassing stupid statements to the press (wonder how quickly he will top Ventura with vulgar comments to a reporter???)

Thing is many arnie voters are looking for a savior. The situation isn't great. Because he didn't say "I can do better" but promised HUGE turnarounds (without knowing squat about how to do this) he won't be given the pass of the bush's of "its all that last guys fault". Arnie promised to ride in on a horse, swoop down to pick up the damsel, and carry her to safety. He played that image.

It is very possible that he will see the fate of Urban School Superintendents - who in the 1990s had a tenure of 18months or less. THe schools would be perceived as disasters - get the new guy (or lady) in who will SAVE them - have record short "honeymoon periods"... within 8 months of no change (imagine being able to get resultable changes in such a short time when working within large institutions and bureacracies... like... a state government...) the sentiment of the public and the board shifts... within 4 more months grumbling picks up and a few are looking for ways to oust the chief (who is often brought in with a multi year (ex 5 yr) contract)... and before the 18 month the super was fired and the search for the new savior was on.

[Neecy]

37. good recap

As a Californian, I can only say that the state is going to get exactly what they deserve for this debacle.

If they think this tool is going to change California for the better, they're in for a big surprise. He'll do nothing for the state except give huge tax breaks to business (that the middle class will end up paying for through cuts in services and higher sales taxes) and open up our coastlines to drilling. Instead of fixing what's wrong, we'll see the wingnuts and gun freaks coming out of the woodwork trying to get their agenda foisted on the public. Fortunately, democrats have their hands on the lever, but all of this distraction won't do anything to fix what's wrong.

And of course, the state's electoral votes are now in play in 2004. I sense that the fix is in.

Shameful. Disgusting.

[joefree1]

42. And I'm not gonna take it anymore

[Flying_Pig]

43. I'm ready for another recall....

but I doubt the majority of other Californians are. If the Dems try to fire one up now, they will be blamed for all of the state's problems. Better to wait, and see if some "good" things can be developed on Ahnold, that can be used as a solid basis for recall.

[Blue_Roses]

44. HERE HERE!!!

very well said!!

[oc2001]

45. ANGER IS THE KEY!!!!!!!

"Add to his lackluster (understatement) campaigning abilities, he also managed to overlook a brewing anger in the electorate. He ignored it, hoping it would go away, never a smart thing for a politician to do."

Your absolutely right, Davis dug his own hole, and then draged the dems into it.

He lost touch with California Democrats, Independents and Liberals. He is probably one of the weakest politicians I have ever seen, no backbone, and most of all, NO ANGER!!!

I am glad he lost, he was taking the Democrats down like a lead anchor around our necks. Now the Democrats have to wonder, "How the hell was this idoit elected in the first place?"

As for the Gropenator, he has alot of charisma, but no experience. I think he will try to make unpopular budget cuts, then play the blame game on the Democrats in state senate, this is the real threat for the Dems.

Screw Davis and good ridance to him and the DLC.

[msmcghee]

46. Very good analysis. n/t