This one's a little late getting up, but better late than never.

Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman for Newsweek.

It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.

Here is the text of the full article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/977064.asp

Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman Newsweek

Tuesday 07 October 2003

Voter alienation will not stop at voting booths in California

It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

There are a lot of reasons. Starting with the winning candidate, here are some:

Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Grope-a-Dope" strategy-the modern version of what they used to call in the Nixon days a "modified limited hangout"-will cause him nothing but problems. Swamped by allegations of sexual misconduct, his fateful answer was to promise a full accounting after Election Day. Now that he's won, his first task won't be to put together his administration but to spell out of the rest of his story. I assumed that he was winging it when he told Tom Brokaw on NBC that he would do that. Turns out, this was a deliberate and considered response. His team, its leaders say, simply did not have the time and resources to go into the details during the campaign. He'll have to do so in Sacramento. This at the same time he will have to put together a new administration with none of the usual "transition" time.

The Budget California's economy is a mess, and the state's budget is, on an annual basis, at least $10 billion in the red. No matter who takes charge in Sacramento, the same gridlock will remain: The Republicans in the legislature are dead-set against raising taxes; the Democrats, who control the place, won't vote for any. If Arnold won, I was told before the vote, the Democrats would gladly accept Schwarzenegger's likely offer to enter into sweeping negotiations. Why? Because they hope to lure Gov. Terminator into agreeing to a tax hike - thus busting up the highly fragile GOP coalition that got him elected.

Recalls Forever Once having started down the recall road, this state can't turn back. The Democratic recall campaign against Schwarzenegger could begin immediately. Choose your excuse. If he fails to give the full accounting he promised of his sexual conduct, that could be one reason. If he fails to craft a budget deal, or he advocates massive cuts in social programs (which he would have to do if there is no tax increase) would be another. "The rules of politics and government here have changed, probably forever," Democratic strategist Bill Carrick told me. "This is the way it's going to be."'

California GOP Division One of Schwarzenegger's toughest tasks will be to make peace with is own party. Social conservatives, in California and elsewhere, were disgusted by the litany of stories about Schwarzenegger's personal behavior. If he moves his lips on taxes, they will be his mortal enemy.

Democratic Second-Guessing The anger of Democrats at Davis is real. They are furious with him for having underestimated voter dismay at the state of the local economy; at the severity of the energy crisis; at the potency of the recall movement. Schwarzenegger's win means the bloodletting will be ugly. "If we lose, there will be three reasons," one prominent Democratic contributor told me here before the vote. "Davis, Davis and Davis." Beyond that, Democrats were expressing their anger at Davis and his allies (notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown). In their view, they should have engineered another, stronger, Democratic alternative on the ballot to Davis and Bustamante. Their view (and it may be wishful thinking) is that someone like Feinstein could have saved the day.

National Republican Division The big parlor game here before Election Day was arguing about whether George Bush's GOP would welcome a victorious Schwarzenegger into the heart of the party. The quick-response answer is yes: The Republicans haven't controlled (if that's the word) the governorship of the largest state since 1998. But depending on what Arnold has to say- in detail-about his past, the Bible Belt conservatives who form the heart of the modern GOP might balk at embracing the Terminator at the New York convention.

Protest Politics The Schwarzenegger win would seem to be a blessing to the GOP, and to Bush. If nothing else, it would spread the Democratic defense in the Electoral College, forcing them next year to spend time and money defending a state-California-that they have come to take for granted in recent presidential elections.

But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.

Davis was under assault because he seemed oblivious to the concerns of Californians. Given his poll ratings on the economy and, now Iraq, Bush runs the increasing risk of being viewed by the American people as just another deaf politico. Until recently, the president's greatest asset was the sense that he was a decent guy, with good values, who wanted to do the right thing. But the questions that have been raised about the rationale for going to war in Iraq have had a corrosive effect on the sense of trust he evoked in most voters.

I know Bush (and Davis). Bush is no Davis. He is as personable as Davis is colorless. But the same rule applies: If voters think you aren't listening to them, they have a way of getting your attention at the next available election.

This just in from Brad Templeton.

Man does John Perry have a way with words.

If someone like Karl Rove had wanted to neutralize the most creative, intelligent, and passionate members of his opposition, he'd have a hard time coming up with a better tool than Burning Man. Exile them to the wilderness, give them a culture in which alpha status requires months of focus and resource-consumptive preparation, provide them with metric tons of psychotropic confusicants, and then... ignore them. It's a pretty safe bet that they won't be out registering voters, or doing anything that might actually threaten electoral change, when they have an art car to build...

Hey, maybe he'll turn out to be a terrific Governor. Weirder things have happened, and lately in abundance. Maybe he will demonstrate such administrative genius that he will surgically remove 9 billion dollars of fatty deposits from California's budget without devastating public services. Maybe he will get the state back on track without either raising taxes or holding Enron accountable for the billions they swindled from his state.

But I kind of doubt it. This is a man who wanted to be adored just like Hitler, as he himself put it. This is a man whose record of boorish sexual impositions would bar him from employment in any Fortune 500 company. Not only is he macho, he *is* macho. He is arrogant, distorted, and possibly the most narcissistic person in Hollywood. (Which would make him, I guess, just about the most narcissistic person in the Milky Way galaxy.) His primary assets are good bones, great teeth, killer name recognition, and a wife whose loyalty exceeds even Hillary Clinton's. Yet the people of California turned out in record numbers a couple of Tuesdays ago and gave him everything but a blowjob.

Here is the full text of the email:

---------> B a R L o W F R i e N D Z ----->

I do try to keep this list to actual friends - by that I mean folks who might bail me out of jail. Some of what I report here is too personal to be of general interest. Nevertheless, please feel free to post or forward anything you think merits wider distribution.

This is incredible. The Shrub didn't tell Arnie anything important because, heck, Arnie didn't ask :-)

Only in Californi-ay. Only in the U.S. of A.

This is from the October 20, 2003 program.

Arnie and The Shrub: Twins (Small - 8 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Why is Arnie so sad about it? The salary he'll be making, and that he has to move to Sacramento :-)

This is from the October 8, 2003 program.

Steve Carell On Arnie's Sad Win (Small - 7 MB)



The Daily Show. (The best news on television.)

This is from the October 8, 2003 program.

More From The Daily Show On Arnie's Governorship Celebration Party (Small - 4 MB)



The Daily Show. (The best news on television.)

Well guys, we tried hard, but we were outnumbered by the sheep.

However, it's not over. If I understand correctly from the little birdies I know, the next step is Recalling Arnold. People will start collecting signatures soon so keep an eye out.

This isn't over yet. We won't just hand our state's future over without a fight.

It may seem a little silly to go around and around like this, but they started it.

In the mean time, try to keep your spirits up. At least Prop 54 didn't pass!

I've got to go to a meeting this morning at my local elementary school, where I'll be starting soon as an SF School Volunteer (more on this later). Then I'll be back to upload some more new music to help get our minds off of this negative stuff.

Peace,

lisa

Wish I'd had a chance to put this up over the weekend, but I just got back into town late tonight.

A friend of mine and I were discussing the idea of creating a "groping index" of sorts that might be useful to help keep track of the 16 sexual harassment complaints about Arnie that have come in so far -- and the rest that are likely to start pouring in over the next few weeks.

Little did we know that Jon Stewart had already begun just such an index last Thursday night!

This is from the October 2, 2003 program.

Jon will be providing live results from the election tonight! Don't Miss it!

Arnie's Groping Confession and Helpful Score Card (Including Bizarre Vagina Requests) (Small - 4 MB)





The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Doug McGuire is a consultant, entrepreneur, and self-proclaimed "writer wannabe" who has taken the time to put the following essay together about Arnold Schwarzenegger, which he has entitled "The Groping Narcissist."

McGuire's done a fair amount of research on this article, and I felt it was worthy of bringing it to your attention before the vote tomorrow.

The transcripts included were borrowed from www.burrelles.com.

The full text is available below. It's not available online - he just sent me a DOC file in an Email. Doug can be reached at Damac57@cs.com.

But does Arnold have the politically savvy to win in California? Oprah’s interview with Arnold was revealing in another way. Demonstrating an innate knack for politics, Arnold was insistent that it was OK to lie to the public, in order to sway their opinion. Like a drum beat he said this over and over.

Oprah: Something you did in 1977, 26 years ago, comes out about Oui
magazine where you were talking about having smoked pot and inhaling and described wild sexual experiences in detail 26 years ago. Now did you remember that interview?

Arnold: We…said the most outrageous things that you can say in order to make
headlines and to be out there… [makes his point once…smiling]

Oprah: Were you making some of that stuff up?

Arnold: …the idea was to say things…over the top so you get headlines [makes
it again…laughing]

Oprah: Yeah

Arnold: [he’s on a roll now…he’s grinning…really full of himself] …we were
really out there doing, you know, Andy Warhol, and this whole thing—and so we were trying to get attention. So this were intent—attention—grabbers, those—those kind of lines.

Finally, just to make sure Oprah understood his point that it is OK to lie to the public, as if he was emphasizing how important such a skill would be in politics, he said it again, seriously:

Arnold: But I mean, this was all outrageous statements in order for people to
say, ‘Oh my God, I got to try that’

Say things that are “over the top.” “Make headlines.” “Be out there.” Use “attention grabbers.” I get it. This is how you would develop campaign sound bites. One-liners. Slogans. Outrageous comments are fair game. Let’s see what outrageous, over the top, attention-grabbing, lies he is telling today in order to get headlines:

“I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women. A champion for the women.” “I’m very pro-women. I’m very much into equality.”

“Hasta la vista, car tax.” "I can kill the tax with my signature alone, and I will do exactly that."

“Game over” “I’ll be back”

The Groping Narcissist

Remember Narcissus from Greek mythology? He was the handsome fellow who fell in love with himself after discovering his own reflection in a pool of water. Narcissus died when he couldn’t fulfill the love. Michael Maccoby, an anthropologist and psychoanalyst reminded us in his January-February 2000 Harvard Business Review article that it was Freud who dubbed a certain personality type as Narcissistic, borrowing from the ancient myth.

Maccoby segues from the “pathological preoccupation” with his own body that doomed Narcissus, and uses Freud’s personality type to analyze modern leaders. He says that narcissism can be both productive and non-productive. The non-productive is interesting in today’s context. Maccoby goes beyond the simple self-love and admiration of Narcissus, and describes today’s non-productive narcissist in Freudian thought: “relentless and ruthless in their pursuit of victory” “not restrained by conscience” “achievements can feed feelings of grandiosity” “a tendency toward grandiosity” “they nurture grand schemes” “lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers.”

What career path would a non-productive narcissist follow, you might wonder? How does a genuine narcissist derive the most fulfillment? A body-builder, perhaps. In that pursuit, like Narcissus, one could spend all hours of the day gazing at floor-to-ceiling mirrors, admiring his own reflection. Approving followers could enjoy his handsome physique, too. The non-productive narcissist, “relentless and ruthless in pursuit of victory,” might even win seven Mr. Universe titles.

Conquering that world, or should I say ‘Universe”, and “with a tendency toward grandiosity,” perhaps he would become an actor, a leading man, so he could always be on stage. Here again the narcissist gains the unambiguous indulgence and adoration of admiring fans. People would cheer him in the streets.

But that would run its course too, because acting is really a fantasy and not so much a “grand scheme”. To feed his feelings of grandiosity, the non-productive narcissist would need more than just devoted followers. He needs everyone to depend on him. He will save everyone, thus earning their love and devotion, their adulation. He needs to run California. Yeah, that should do it.

The following dialogue is clipped from Burrelle’s transcripts at www.burrelles.com. It is part of the text of the recent Oprah Winfrey Show when Oprah interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the interview, Schwarzenegger described his career path to Oprah. They discussed how much Arnold enjoyed the recall campaign and why he decided to go for it. Bear in mind that Arnold couldn’t very well say that his past “achievements” were beginning to “feed feelings of grandiosity” and that he had begun to “nurture grand schemes” and that “lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors” he had become an “unrealistic dreamer.” So he just said he wanted to try something new.

Oprah: Are you liking it, Arnold, though? You’re liking it?

Arnold: I love it.

Oprah: You love it.

Arnold: I-I absolutely love it.

Oprah: Because you love a challenge. Yeah.

Arnold: You have to understand—no, but, you know, remember when— when—when we met I was just getting out of body-building and…

Oprah: Yeah.

Arnold: …and I was just getting—this was the late 70s…

Oprah: Yeah

Arnold: …and you asking me the same question, you said to me, when we were
driving around in Baltimore, you said, you know, ‘How is it now, getting into the acting?’ And I—I said to you, ‘I’m excited about doing something new. I’ve done the body building now, the competition, the training every day, five hours. I want to learn something new. I want to get into show business and work my way up in show business, and be a leading man and all this.’ And you said, ‘Wow, yeah, if this will happen.’

Oprah: See, I didn’t believe you then, but I believe you now. I believe you
now.

Arnold: But the same is—but the same is now Oprah. It’s the same thing, It’s
a new thing.

So, a possible career path for the non-productive narcissist is from body-builder, where awards are given with grandiose sounding titles like Mr. Universe, to ‘leading man’ where he can appear on a larger stage, where superficial imagery reaches even more people. Finally, by moving into politics, the non-productive narcissist might even become a real-life hero, proving that his past achievements were no fantasies at all. Mr. Universe, Terminator, Governor Schwarzenegger. Ah.

But does Arnold have the politically savvy to win in California? Oprah’s interview with Arnold was revealing in another way. Demonstrating an innate knack for politics, Arnold was insistent that it was OK to lie to the public, in order to sway their opinion. Like a drum beat he said this over and over.

Oprah: Something you did in 1977, 26 years ago, comes out about Oui
magazine where you were talking about having smoked pot and inhaling and described wild sexual experiences in detail 26 years ago. Now did you remember that interview?

Arnold: We…said the most outrageous things that you can say in order to make
headlines and to be out there… [makes his point once…smiling]

Oprah: Were you making some of that stuff up?

Arnold: …the idea was to say things…over the top so you get headlines [makes
it again…laughing]

Oprah: Yeah

Arnold: [he’s on a roll now…he’s grinning…really full of himself] …we were
really out there doing, you know, Andy Warhol, and this whole thing—and so we were trying to get attention. So this were intent—attention—grabbers, those—those kind of lines.

Finally, just to make sure Oprah understood his point that it is OK to lie to the public, as if he was emphasizing how important such a skill would be in politics, he said it again, seriously:

Arnold: But I mean, this was all outrageous statements in order for people to
say, ‘Oh my God, I got to try that’

Say things that are “over the top.” “Make headlines.” “Be out there.” Use “attention grabbers.” I get it. This is how you would develop campaign sound bites. One-liners. Slogans. Outrageous comments are fair game. Let’s see what outrageous, over the top, attention-grabbing, lies he is telling today in order to get headlines:

“I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women. A champion for the women.” “I’m very pro-women. I’m very much into equality.”

“Hasta la vista, car tax.” "I can kill the tax with my signature alone, and I will do exactly that."

“Game over” “I’ll be back”

Never mind that killing the car tax will increase the California budget deficit by more than four billion dollars.

I see it now -- go into politics – get the public’s attention -- lie to them -- sway their opinion -- and so on. Makes sense. But how do you explain it if someone catches you on the lies? Here again we see Arnold’s simple brilliance:

Oprah: When you decided to run for governor, you must have known
everything you’ve ever done is now going to come to the forefront.

Arnold: See, so, but it—and the—and at the time, I did not—I did not think that
I’m going to run for governor either.

Oprah: Yeah.

Arnold: So, of course, you know, I was saying those things and I was over the
top in order to….

Oprah: Because you would have cleaned it up.

Arnold: Hey, believe me.

Oprah: Yeah.

Another part of Arnold’s interview was a shocker. Remember, this is the Oprah Winfrey Show. A hundred times during each show, the camera flashes to the smiling faces of the soccer moms in the audience, the suburban Chicago women, and the progressive gals who visit the Oprah show for its positive message. More importantly, sitting next to Arnold is his wife, Maria. The reaction by Maria and Oprah indicates they were stunned by Arnold’s crude and unnecessary remark. It shouldn’t be a surprise, however, because narcissists also tend to be insensitive oafs:

Oprah: Do you remember the parties, Arnold?

Arnold: I really don’t. No, but, I mean, you know, these were the times where I
was saying things, like, you know, ‘a pump is better than cumming,’ and all those kinds of things. Yeah.

There was both embarrassed laughter and sounds of stunned disbelief. Maria’s and Oprah’s eyes were wide open and their jaws dropped. They were laughing, but it was nervous, embarrassed laughter. Especially for Maria. Arnold continued talking over the din of the audience, and the interruptions by Maria. Maria even covered Arnold’s mouth with her hand. Yes, she reached up on national television and put her hand over his mouth, so stunned was she by his insensitivity. But Arnold just pulled away from her hand and kept on talking:

Arnold: No, no, but, I mean—but, like, you know, today…

Maria: Wait a minute. Why did you do that? I said my mother
is watching this show. My mother is watching this show.

Arnold: I know. I un—I understand. I understand. I understand. OK.

Maria: I mean, my God. Now…

Arnold: Wherever—wherever Eunice is, don’t pay any attention. OK. But
I mean, but the point…

I think Maria next tried to help Arnold, to lead him out of the dog pile, but he really didn’t listen to her. That’s another trait of the narcissist. They don’t listen to others.

Maria: Right. That’s the stuff you used to say.

Arnold: No, no. That’s what I’m saying. But the point of it…the—the—the--is

Maria: OK.

Oprah: Let him say…

Arnold: Thank you.

Maria: But I don’t want to let him say anything. Oh.

Arnold: You see, now…

Oprah: Go ahead, Arnold. Finish.

Arnold: No, no. But now…

Oprah: Now?

Arnold: ….now you know what I go through at home, OK? So gives you a
little taste.

Oprah: Yeah

Now, when Arnold made the wisecrack about his life at home with Maria, it was a joke, right? Or, was Arnold really “kidding on the square”? Either way, it’s obvious now how much Arnold respects women. They aren’t just for groping whenever you have the urge. They’re are worth putting up with, even if it gets a little tough at home.

But wait. Is that really it? When Arnold says he’s a champion of the women, and that he believes in equality for women, is he really just saying outrageous, attention-grabber headlines, to sway public opinion? To get people to say “Oh, my God. I’ve got to vote for this guy?”

In August, a study surfaced by James Houran, a psychology professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, about Celebrity Worship Syndrome, an affliction that affects as much as one third of the population. People with CWS are overly susceptible to real-life influence by their fantasy idol. At one extreme, those with CWS will go so far as to commit a crime if asked by an idol to do so; Hitler’s followers, for example. At the milder end of the scale, a CWS sufferer will do less harmful things, like believe every word their idol says. Or, if their idol is a murderer, even though most CWS sufferers would never kill anyone, they might cheer while a white Bronco carries their idol-murderer down the highway. Or, if their idol is a pro-athlete accused of rape, they might stand and cheer him on when he enters a courtroom. Will CWS sufferers vote for their idol, the happy narcissist? That’s a slam-dunk.

Idolatry. Hero worship. Isn’t this what Arnold is all about? He keeps weaving his old movie lines into his campaign slogans as if he is aware that he needs the CWS vote. During a recent political debate, he even told Arriana he had a role for her in Terminator 4. He doesn’t seem to want to leave his movie star roots behind. He needs votes from his CWS-suffering followers, the one third who will vote for him because he is a movie star -- part of their fantasy – who don’t really care if he is a rake, much less if he has the political skills to run the state with the sixth largest economy in the world. Arnold needs the CWS vote because he doesn’t have a political base. But even more than politics, he really needs the CWS vote to fulfill his more than ample self-love and admiration, to feed his grandiose and narcissistic schemes, and to convert his fantasy-world heroism to real-life heroism.

On the subject of groping and being “not restrained by conscience,” Arnold’s recent admissions that he fondled women on “rowdy movie sets” and other places, accusations that span from the 1970s to the year 2000, and for which he has summarily apologized, perhaps should be overlooked. Maybe we shouldn’t hold him accountable for that “bad behavior,” because, well, as he put it:

“See, so, but it—and the—and at the time, I did not—I did not think that I’m going to run for governor either.”

Yeah.

Here's a message from MoveOn about why it's sooooo important for you to vote tomorrow in the California Recall Election.

I've rearranged them a bit because I still believe that Arnold's connection to the energy crooks (here's Greg Palast's Info on this issue) is the most important reason to not trust this guy as governor.

Dear Friend,

Please forward this email to anyone you think should read it -- this is once again a very close race and tomorrow every single vote will count. Also keep in mind that many usual polling places will be closed this election. You can click here to look up your polling place. And forward this to your friends so they can look up their polling places as well.

Seven Reasons Why You Absolutely, Positively MUST Vote on Oct. 7:

Ed note: I'm putting #7 first because I still feel it's most important:

7. Because Schwarzenegger STILL hasn't explained why he met with Enron's Kenneth Lay at the height of the energy crisis. Schwarzenegger attended a meeting of top business leaders and Republican politicians on May 17, 2001 that was apparently held to thwart a Davis-Bustamante plan to recover $9 billion from energy companies. He still hasn't explained why he was there or whether his candidacy for Governor was discussed at that meeting. And he's refusing to talk to reporters in these last days of the campaign. (San Mateo Times, FTCR)

1. Your vote matters. If you don't vote, Schwarzenegger becomes your governor. It's that simple. A poll conducted Wednesday through Saturday showed support for the recall and Schwarzenegger dropping fast. This election could be decided by a very small number of votes. We can win this, but your vote is absolutely necessary. (
The Mercury News)

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Pete Wilson sequel. Governor Pete Wilson grew state spending much faster than Gray Davis ever has. Worse, he championed energy deregulation and in 1996 signed the bill that deregulated energy in California. Wilson opened the gates to let his energy pals rob the state blind. And now he and his former team are running Schwarzenegger's campaign and choosing his policies. Even more troubling: Schwarzenegger seems to be in bed with the same energy interests as Wilson (See #7). We want to see Terminator 4, not Wilson 2. (Horowitz, Conason)

3. We have no idea what Schwarzenegger is going to do with California, and neither does he. He doesn't have a plan to balance the budget. He hasn't said what cuts he'll make or what taxes he'll raise. California needs a real leader, not someone who plays one in the movies. You may be frustrated with the way things are now -- but if Schwarzenegger had a plan to make them better, don't you think he would have told us about it?

4. He lied about taking money from special interests. The night he announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show he told us, "As you know, I don't need to take money from anyone. I have plenty of money myself." He then turned right around and accepted over $10 million not from "special" interests, but rather, as he explained it, "business and individuals, absolutely. They're powerful interests who control things." (Saramento Bee,
CNN)

5. Arnold Schwarzenegger might belong on the sex offender registry, but not in the governor's mansion. So far 15 credible women have come forward with stories of being physically assaulted by this man -- some only a few years ago. He has not denied some of the stories (in fact, he said "where there's smoke, there's fire"). He has tried to chalk his mistakes up to "rowdiness." But these incidents constitute a string of crimes that would land anyone except a multi-millionaire actor in jail and on the sex offender registry. (Los Angeles Times, Newsday)

6. The Nazi stuff is serious. Who care's how long ago it was that Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he wanted to have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium, and have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say." That's scary! And now nuns are being roughed up at Schwarzenegger rallies. A film maker who worked closely with Schwarzenegger in the 70's says he saw him playing, "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home." At his 1988 wedding Schwarzenegger toasted a confirmed Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, saying "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt." Where there's smoke, there's fire! (New York Times, Slate, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times)

Thank you,

-- Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
October 6th, 2003

Reminder: NO on the Recall. Yes on Cruz Bustamante. (No on Prop 54.)

As I suspected, this Recall is more about trying to quash a lawsuit against the crooks that took the people of California for 9 Billion dollars than anything else.

Greg Palast has done his homework again. Read on.

Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected

By Greg Palast.

It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal...

It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.

Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.

It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger...

But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).

So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=283

Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected
Friday, October 3, 2003

It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal.

The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.

Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.

Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.

It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.

Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.

How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.

While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay.

But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).

So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.

Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the Governor of California won't play along. Solution: Re-call the Governor.

New Problem: the guy most likely to replace Davis is not Mr. Musclehead, but Cruz Bustamante, even a bigger threat to the power companies than Davis. Solution: smear Cruz because -- heaven forbid! -- he took donations from Injuns (instead of Ken Lay).

The pay-off? Once Arnold is Governor, he blesses the sweetheart settlements with the power companies. When that happens, Bustamante's court cases are probably lost. There aren't many judges who will let a case go to trial to protect a state if that a governor has already allowed the matter to be "settled" by a regulatory agency.

So think about this. The state of California is in the hole by $8 billion for the coming year. That's chump change next to the $8 TRILLION in deficits and surplus losses planned and incurred by George Bush. Nevertheless, the $8 billion deficit is the hanging rope California's right wing is using to lynch Governor Davis.

Yet only Davis and Bustamante are taking direct against to get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of the state by Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Company and the other Texas bandits who squeezed the state by the bulbs.

But if Arnold is selected, it's 'hasta la vista' to the $9 billion. When the electricity emperors whistle, Arnold comes -- to the Peninsula Hotel or the Governor's mansion. The he-man turns pussycat and curls up in their lap.

I asked Mr. Muscle's PR people to comment on the new Enron memos -- and his strange silence on Bustamante's suit or Davis' petition. But Arnold was too busy shaving off his Hitlerian mustache to respond.

The Enron memos were discovered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles,
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

I've always been against the Recall -- I'm shocked and dismayed that we're wasting so much of our valuable time and resources when we have so little of either. It's really important for you to get out and vote this Tuesday!

I've been toying with the idea of trying to organize some kind of exit polls the night of the election. I know a lot of us have to work that day (those of us lucky enough to have jobs), but what if we all spent even just that last hour between 7 and 8 pm asking people how they voted on the way out of the polling place? I'd be happy to coordinate the results by hand if necessary.

Would anyone be willing to work on this with me? Email me at lisarein@finetuning.com if you would.

Thanks!

This came in yesterday from MoveOn.org:

***In front of a national audience last night, Arianna Huffington outlined the dramatically simple reality facing Californians: if you don't vote against the recall, Arnold Schwarzenegger will become governor. Today we're passing along a letter from her explaining why she dropped out of the race and is working to defeat the recall. Please get the word out that a vote for the recall is a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger: FORWARD THIS EMAIL to friends, coworkers and family.

Dear Friend,

Last night I withdrew my candidacy from the recall race and today I am writing to sound an alarm about what is at stake in this election. I am devoting all my time and energy in these remaining six days to defeating the recall -- and to defeating the Arnold Schwarzenegger-Pete Wilson forces that are trying to use the recall to hijack our state. Please help me do that by forwarding this message.

I have signed MoveOn's "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge and I urge you to do the same. More than 260,000 people have pledged to do something -- such as forwarding this email! -- in these last days to defeat the recall and stop Arnold Schwarzenegger. Click here to sign the pledge:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

From the beginning of my campaign I have said that I opposed the recall on principle. It was backed by a bunch of Republican sore losers looking for a backdoor way to overturn an election they lost. Nevertheless, once the recall was set, I felt that the opportunity it offered to elect a truly independent and progressive governor was too important to let pass. And so I entered the race.

Here's the rest of the email message:

Now that it's clear that's not going to happen, my highest priority is to issue a wake up call and bring a sense of urgency to what is at stake. The people of California simply cannot afford to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor.

In 2000, we were taken in by a charming, affable man who promised us compassion but gave us war in Iraq, a soaring deficit, millions of lost jobs, two million more people living in poverty, and the rollback of vital environmental protections. I look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, and see more of the same. We don't need another figurehead for all the usual Republican special interests. Let's not be fooled again.

When this race started, Arnold Schwarzenegger was an unknown quantity. And a week before the election there is still far too much we don't know about him.

If, as he says, he is going to balance the budget but raise no taxes, shouldn't he have to tell us -- before the election, not after -- precisely what vital programs and services he proposes to cut to make that happen -- and precisely who is going to feel the pain of those cuts?

Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent millions of dollars crafting and selling a political persona that is completely contradicted by reality:

• He promised to take no special interest money, but then turned around and raised millions from special interests for his campaign.
• He painted himself as an outsider, but then surrounded himself with Pete Wilson operatives and a Who's Who of GOP insiders.

• He went on Oprah to appeal to women, but didn't include a single woman on his team of economic advisors. In a state where there are tens of thousands of women in positions of power, including both U.S. Senators, there was not even one woman who he thought worthy of adding to the mix?

• A vote for the recall is a vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. We must not vote for a fantasy leader and end up with a nightmare: a Bush Republican who thinks the answer to all of California's problems can be found in making life even easier for businesses and giant corporations.

We can defeat the recall. But what will it take? It will take forwarding this email to all your friends, and picking up the phone and talking to those friends who might need your encouragement to vote, or who might need to hear more about what's at stake from you before they make up their mind. There are already 260,000 of us working against the recall in these simple ways. Sign the "Recall No, Democracy Yes" pledge to join us:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

Sincerely,

-- Arianna Huffington
October 1st, 2003

If you forward this email to others, please be sensitive that you are sending to friends or colleagues who want to hear from you on this. Spam hurts our campaign.

I had an interesting time at the Rally at Sproul Plaza in Berkeley on September 16, 2003.

I won't say it was "fun" or anything, because it wasn't, really. More on this below. My first problem was that I had left late from school and I missed the first part of the speech. The second problem was that I had been up till 2:00 am the night before posting Cheney on Meet The Press clips. So I only got the last third of the speech (see below).

I was quite excited when I got to interview Jesse Jackson for a minute, but otherwise, it was kind of a mean crowd. Or, should I say "immature" crowd, at best. They had no respect for my camera, for instance. And one jerk even thought it was funny to push it over on purpose, once he realized I was trying to protect it.

I guess I've been spoiled for the most part at these kinds of events in the past, where everyone has been really nice and ducked when they walked in front of the camera and helped me to reach better views and the like. This crowd just wanted to get autographs after Jesse's speech and they were pushing and shoving really badly.

I decided to go stand on the stairs of Sproul Hall and try to get a better shot from up above. (I had given up on actually talking to Jesse). I guess the crowd's attitude toward me could have been partly my own fault from trying to maneuver in the crowd with a tripod, so I ditched the tripod and was trying to figure out how to get close again when...the usual miracle happened (Yes, I do have incredible luck at these events!) and Jesse started walked over towards me on the stairs.

His security people were holding back the crowd a bit, so I waited until he was close enough for him to hear me and took a chance on asking him a question. He didn't hear me the first time, so I asked him again. I saw a light go off when he heard the question, and he stopped signing for a minute and looked up and said "Huh?"

"Do you think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about the recall will hold?" I asked again.

Then he paused and thought for a minute, and gave his answer.

Here's an edited version of the speech. (Small - 5 MB)

Here's a longer, edited version of the speech. (Small - 18 MB)

Here's a near complete version of the speech. (Small - 31 MB)

This was just sent to me from MoveOn:

Dear fellow Californian,

California is at a crossroads. Our finances, schools and society are all in crisis. And at this, our state's most vulnerable moment, a handful of self-interested political players are attempting an unprecedented power grab.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and his backers are seizing the recall as a once-in-a-lifetime chance for him to buy the governorship. The abbreviated race has allowed him to duck tough questions and avoid unscripted debate. He has promised voters a balanced budget without new taxes or spending cuts -- an impossibility except perhaps in a Hollywood movie. He has no plan for helping California and absolutely no experience that might help him come up with one.

The recall and Schwarzenegger's self-funded, media-driven campaign are sucker punches to our democratic system and values. We have seven full days left to fight back and a team of 250,000 people for this final push.

If you have not joined the team by signing our "No Recall" pledge, then please join us now by clicking here:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

If you've already signed, then forward this message to all your like-minded friends, coworkers and family and ask them to join us for this final one-week blitz to defeat the recall, stop Schwarzenegger and defend democracy. Let's grow our team to 300,000 people.

Don't be discouraged by the weekend's far-out poll: this race is so unusual that polls are even more meaningless than they usually are. We believe this is still an incredibly close race. And it's a fact that there are enough of us working on this to make the difference ourselves. But we've got to work hard: pick up the phone and call that friend you know might forget to vote, put up a sign in your window, sign up for phone banking -- do whatever it takes.

Over the next seven days we'll be highlighting several different things you can do to make a real, tangible difference in the recall election. With 300,000 people working together, we'll each just need to influence one other person to vote against the recall who might not have without us. If we can do that, then we'll defeat the recall by a wide margin and democracy will have a decisive victory on October 7.

Sincerely,

-- Carrie, James, Joan, Peter and Wes
(The Californians of) MoveOn.org PAC
September 29th, 2003

PS: For more on how Schwarzenegger leads the pack in fundraising thanks to his own personal contributions, check out this article.

At the time of this writing, the Recall is already back on.

It wasn't at the time this aired, though.

This is from the September 16, 2003 program.

Stephen Colbert On Recalling the Recall (Small - 10 MB)



The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Well, at least he's sticking to something he knows about: his Terminator movies.

This is just a little silly clip at the end of the September 17, 2003 program.

I thought it was pretty funny. I don't know why, really.

Arnie Over Explaining Himself (Small - 2 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the September 24, 2003 program.

So I really do have another 8 clips in the kitty that will be going up today, but then this happened last night and I really felt that it demanded priority over the others.

Great real news coverage of the implications of this week's decision by the courts by Jon before the comedy kicks in with a vengeance.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw this one. I think I laughed until I cried (for a lot of different reasons).

Why is the Daily Show the only "news" program to cover the real issues surrounding the decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals to knowingly disenfranchise millions of California voters?

I can't answer that question. But I did stay up late last night to bring this to you today.

CA Recall Update - Bush v. Gore Take 2 (Small - 10 MB)



The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

I've converted the PDF files into HTML versions so we can view and link within them easily.

If you have a particular page where you'd like an embedded link to somewhere within the text for some reason. Just let me know.

The original, most excellent decision by the 3 Judge Panel, is on top, dated September 15, 2003.

The bogus, disappointing overturning of that decision, dated September 23, 2003, is below it.

CA Recall Decision Documents: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley

Crap. The recall's back on -- disenfranchised voters be damned.

Let's hope the Supreme Court steps in to save the day.
(No I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice, and I can dream, can't I?)

Here's the PDF Brief

Here's a story on CNN about it.

I'll be making the docs available in HTML soon...

Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/recall.ruling/index.html

A second member of the U.S. military has been detained after being found with classified information on Guantanamo Bay detainees, CNN has learned. Details soon.

Appeals court reinstates California recall vote
Gubernatorial election gets green light for October 7

Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Posted: 1:19 PM EDT (1719 GMT)

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, California Gov. Gray Davis will face a recall vote on October 7.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- California's gubernatorial recall election should proceed as scheduled for October 7, a federal appeals courts ruled Tuesday, overturning last week's decision that delayed the proceeding.

The unanimous ruling from an 11-judge panel with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came less than 24 hours after a hearing at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the recall election should be delayed until March because some counties would be using outdated and unreliable voting equipment.

But the judges rejected that claim, concluding that more harm would come from postponing the election than allowing it to move forward. The ruling overturned a decision from a three-judge panel from the same court to postpone the election.

"There is no doubt that the right to vote is fundamental, but a federal court cannot lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election," the 11 judges ruled. The judges cited that "hundreds of thousands" of absentee voters already have cast their ballot and that the candidates have crafted their campaigns to coincide with the October 7 election.

"These investments of time, money and the exercise of citizenship rights cannot be returned," the ruling said.

The judges said the ACLU had raised some valid points, particularly as they relate to the claim that the use of punch-card ballots would disproportionately affect minority voters. That machinery is used in six counties with a high minority population.

But the judges said such a claim of voting mishaps was only a "possibility," not "a strong likelihood."

Unless the ACLU goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and that court halts the proceedings, California voters will head to the polls in two weeks and decide whether Democratic Gov. Gray Davis should be ousted. They also will pick a replacement -- choosing from 135 names on the ballot -- in case Davis is recalled.

Voters also will consider two statewide initiatives: Proposition 53, a proposed constitutional amendment requiring that a portion of the state budget be set aside for infrastructure spending, and Proposition 54, a measure that would restrict the ability of government agencies to collect racial data.

A spokesman for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate, hailed the ruling as "good news."

"The election has been ongoing with absentee ballots, hundreds of thousands of votes have already been cast, and now is time to move on to Election Day on October 7," said spokesman Sean Walsh.

A spokesman for an anti-recall group suggested his organization would not pursue further legal appeals but called on officials to make sure the election would be fair.

"It is time to move forward, but it is now doubly important that counties do everything in their power to make sure every single vote is counted," said Peter Ragone, communications director for Californians Against the Costly Recall.

Meanwhile, Davis was scheduled to appear Tuesday with another high-profile Democrat, part of a bid to cast the recall as some sort of national referendum.

Democrats are trying to depict the recall election as an effort by Republicans to overturn an election they could not win in November, when Davis was re-elected to a second term.

Davis is scheduled to discuss homeland security with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman in Santa Ana, while Schwarzenegger has a town hall meeting scheduled in Sacramento.

Even Schwarzenegger's wife, television journalist Maria Shriver, is in on the act, speaking to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on "Ten Things You Should Know About Arnold."

On Wednesday, the leading recall candidates -- including Schwarzenegger who has skipped earlier forums -- will gather for a debate.

If you're as much of a courtroom junkie as I am, you'll dig these clips from yesterday of Judge Alex Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld.
(A friend filled me in on who Kleinfeld was. I only recognized Alex Kozinski because he was at the moot court at the Spectrum Policy Conference last March.)

Clip #1 is from CNN's "Inside Politics" and contains Kozinski as he questions one of the lawyers.

Clip #2 is also from CNN's "Inside Politics" and contains analysis from a couple of the show's stock pundits.

Clip #3 is from CNN's "Crossfire" and includes footage of Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld as they question the lawyers.

These are all from September 23, 2003.

Clip #1: Justice Alex Kozinski on CNN's Inside Politics.

Justice Kozinski On CNN (Small - 10 MB)

Clip #2: Pundit analysis of the CA Recall from CNN's Inside Politcs.

Inside Politics On The CA Recall (Small - 14 MB)

Clip #3: Justices Kozinski and Kleinfeld questioning the lawyers.

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals On The CA Recall (Small - 8 MB)

This is from the September 10, 2003 program.

Rob Courddry On The CA Recall 9/10/03 (Small - 10 MB)



The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the September 16, 2003 program.

Daily Show's Recall On The Recall (Small - 9 MB)



The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

One More Round For Bush v. Gore
By Charles Lane for the Washington Post.

Bush v. Gore held for the first time that the Constitution's equal protection clause, which protects citizens from arbitrarily disparate treatment at the hands of state authorities, can be applied to the methods states use to tally votes. Previously, election methods had been thought to be mostly the province of state officials.

The court ruled that a statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to account for uncounted punch-card ballots, many of which were marred by "hanging chads" and the like, would be conducted according to wildly varying rules, making it impossible for the state to treat everyone equally within the short time available.

For the liberal interest groups and lawyers who have been fighting California's recall, Bush v. Gore has mutated from reviled electoral coup to legitimate legal weapon.

If the case means anything, they argue, it means that the Constitution forbids states from arbitrarily counting different voters' ballots differently. That includes setting up an election in which one technology, the punch-card machines, would subject a sizeable percentage of voters -- among whom are a disproportionate number of minorities -- to a greater risk of having their ballots discounted than other voters.

Indeed, yesterday's ruling flowed from earlier litigation, since settled, in which groups used Bush v. Gore to win a promise from the state that all its punch-card machines would be replaced by March 2004, when the state will hold Republican and Democratic primaries.

The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, about 40,000 out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.

Such discrepancies would probably not have risen to the level of a federal issue in the past, but 2000 changed all that, the 9th Circuit ruled.

"If we had brought the punch-card case to court before Bush v. Gore, you'd likely see the courts say, 'No, states have to have some leeway,' " said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who aided the American Civil Liberties Union in the case. "But if it doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16011-2003Sep15.html

Analysis: The Law
One More Round For Bush v. Gore

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A01

Just last February, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a dissenter in the historic 2000 election case that handed victory to President Bush, told a law school audience in San Diego that Bush v. Gore was a "one of a kind case," adding: "I doubt it will ever be cited as precedent by the court on anything."

But yesterday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit essentially declared that the legal fallout of the 2000 case is not so easily contained.

In a 66-page unsigned opinion, the panel, made up of Judges Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, cited Bush v. Gore repeatedly to support the view that California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election would be unconstitutional if the state, as planned, used outmoded punch-card ballot machines like those that contributed to the deadlock in Florida in 2000. The punch-card technology would deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to have their ballots counted fairly, the court ruled.

"In this case, Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claim mirrors the one recently analyzed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore," the 9th Circuit observed.

If the panel ruling is not reversed by a larger 9th Circuit body, the Supreme Court justices, for whom the stress and strain -- both personal and institutional -- of 2000 are still a fresh memory, will face a choice. They can stay out of the California case and risk permitting what they may view as a debatable interpretation of Bush v. Gore to stand, or they can plunge in and assume the risk that they will once again be criticized for partisanship no matter what they decide.

Bush v. Gore held for the first time that the Constitution's equal protection clause, which protects citizens from arbitrarily disparate treatment at the hands of state authorities, can be applied to the methods states use to tally votes. Previously, election methods had been thought to be mostly the province of state officials.

The court ruled that a statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court to account for uncounted punch-card ballots, many of which were marred by "hanging chads" and the like, would be conducted according to wildly varying rules, making it impossible for the state to treat everyone equally within the short time available.

For the liberal interest groups and lawyers who have been fighting California's recall, Bush v. Gore has mutated from reviled electoral coup to legitimate legal weapon.

If the case means anything, they argue, it means that the Constitution forbids states from arbitrarily counting different voters' ballots differently. That includes setting up an election in which one technology, the punch-card machines, would subject a sizeable percentage of voters -- among whom are a disproportionate number of minorities -- to a greater risk of having their ballots discounted than other voters.

Indeed, yesterday's ruling flowed from earlier litigation, since settled, in which groups used Bush v. Gore to win a promise from the state that all its punch-card machines would be replaced by March 2004, when the state will hold Republican and Democratic primaries.

The 9th Circuit noted that, according to experts, about 40,000 out of the several million expected to vote in the recall election would lose out because of the normal 2.23 percent error rate in the punch-card technology. Those voters would tend to come from six heavily minority counties containing 44 percent of the state's voters, whereas 56 percent of the state's voting population would get the benefit of machines with an error rate of no more than 0.89 percent.

Such discrepancies would probably not have risen to the level of a federal issue in the past, but 2000 changed all that, the 9th Circuit ruled.

"If we had brought the punch-card case to court before Bush v. Gore, you'd likely see the courts say, 'No, states have to have some leeway,' " said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who aided the American Civil Liberties Union in the case. "But if it doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere."

But others say both the recall's opponents and the 9th Circuit panel -- made up of three of that left-leaning court's most liberal members -- have misinterpreted Bush v. Gore.

For all its conclusive impact on the Florida recount, the Supreme Court's majority opinion ended on a note of ambivalence.

Protesting that their involvement was an "unsought responsibility," the majority -- made up of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- said the decision was "limited to the present circumstances."

The 9th Circuit panel just blew by that admonition, some legal analysts say.

"It over-read Bush v. Gore a little bit," said Vikram Amar, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. "You can't say it's quite identical, because Bush v. Gore involved manual recounts, not machine mistakes. In 2000, the Supreme Court was worried that standardless criteria allowed individuals to manipulate results, and that may be worse constitutionally than machine errors skewing the result."

I had a chance to speak briefly with Jesse Jackson after his speech today.

This took place in Sproul Plaza on Tuesday, September 16, 2003.

Jesse Jackson On Whether Or Not The 9th Circuit Decision On The Recall Will Hold (Small - 3 MB)
Jesse Jackson On Whether Or Not The 9th Circuit Decision On The Recall Will Hold (Hi-res - 35 MB)

Lisa Rein: "Do you think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about the Recall election is gonna hold?"

Jesse Jackson: "It's difficult to say, only because this Supreme Court did an extrodinary thing in 2000. They stopped the vote determining the outcome of the presidency. So if they would do it for a President, they might do it for a Governor. You just don't know. So we must be prepared."

"I feel that momentum is building. People are finally beginning to see the danger of this act of disenfranchisement and destabilization. Whether it's Prop 54 or the Recall. Both are of the same ideology. They seek to disenfranchise and to destablize and people must fight back. If we fight back, we'll win."

Hope to see you today at the protest.
(Maps and instructions provided.)

It's very important for the Supreme Court to know that we respect and support yesterday's decision by the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals to halt the recall election.

It really is like Florida all over again. Let's hope the Supreme Court does the right thing this time. I have a good feeling that it will. The facts are a lot more clear cut this time around.

Thanks again, Bobby, for being so on top of things!

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE BAY AREA TO SAY NO TO THE RECALL

I know it sounds like the Courts are going to push the recall back a few months, but there is still a week before the Supreme Court will finally decide and it is important to keep the anti-recall momentum going forward.

SO.........Why don't YOU show up at Sproul Plaza (Bancroft/Telegraph in Berkeley on the UC Campus) at noon or stop by the Third Baptist Church in SF at 2pm. (The church is at 1399 McAllister Street, at Pierce, in the Western Edition in San Francisco.)

If you want more info, the message MoveOn sent me is below.

Just wanted to let you guys know that I will be going to this protest in Berkeley tomorrow.

I have just enough time between my morning and afternoon class at SFSU to take BART out to Berkeley and record the speeches and head back. So you'll get to see the event either way. But it's really important for there to be a huge turnout at these events, so that the Supreme Court will know how we feel and take that into account while it's making its decision.

Jesse Jackson will be there. It ought to be really cool.

Footage will go up promptly tomorrow night. (After I get home from class at 5 and have a chance to upload it.)

Hope to see you there!

Here's the message that MoveOn sent Bobby:

Dear MoveOn member,

This Tuesday, Sept. 16, Rev. Jesse Jackson will be speaking in two locations,
urging voters to vote No on the Recall and No on Prop. 54. In SF, he will be
joined by Governor Davis.

Please join him and show your support for the message.

Wes Boyd, President
MoveOn.org

---------

Rev. Jackson with Governor Davis in San Francisco
KEEP HOPE ALIVE - STOP THE RECALL TOUR

WHERE: Third Baptist Church - 1399 McAllister St. @ Pierce Street

WHEN: 2pm

Contact: Third Baptist Church at 415-346-4426
Hosted by Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Rev. Amos Brown, Third Baptist Church

http://www.rainbowpush.org

* or *

Rev. Jackson at UC Berkeley:
KEEP HOPE ALIVE - CAMPUS TOUR 2003

WHERE: Sproul Plaza (off Bancroft and Telegraph)

WHEN: Tuesday, September 16, noon - 1pm

Contact for more info: Peter Gee 510-207-9058
Hosted by: Associated Students, California Faculty Association, Stay in
School Program, Coalition for an African American Community Agenda,
Rainbow/Push Coalition, PowerPAC, Justice Matters Institute, Stop
Prop 54 Coalition, Campus Coalition Against 54, & more.

Jesse Jackson will be visiting four college campuses throughout
California this week, and will be kicking it off in the Bay Area
with a visit to UC Berkeley on Tuesday, September 16th, from 12-1pm.
The rally hosted by the UC Berkeley student government will be in
the midst of one of the largest voter registration drives in school
history to register students for the Recall Election. Jesse Jackson
will be speaking to the importance of the upcoming election and the
power that youth have to mobilize and shift the direction of the
election. He will also be speaking to the disastrous impacts
proposition 54 will have on our state, public health, education
and civil rights.

Students from the NO on Proposition 54 coalition have been working
on the campaign for over 10 months and are enthusiastic to have the
Reverend come to campus in the midst of the campaign to speak out
against the proposition.

Bravo! Bravo! I must say, I am pleasantly surprised by this thoughtful ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals.

(Too bad the Supreme Court wasn't as thoughtful in the 2000 presidential election.)

Appeals court blocks California recall
By Bob Franken and Kelly Wallace for CNN.

The ruling follows a hearing last week at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

The ACLU said the punch-card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest. Those six counties include 44 percent of state voters and have heavy concentrations of minority voters.

A lower court last month had rejected the request, but the appeals court disagreed.

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court concluded, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election.

"The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear."

Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the ACLU, called the decision "a masterpiece."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/recall.delay/index.html

Appeals court blocks California recall
Voting equipment 'defects' cited

Monday, September 15, 2003 Posted: 5:45 PM EDT (2145 GMT)

California Gov. Gray Davis talks to reporters Monday, following a court decision postponing the recall election.
Story Tools


RELATED
Federal appeals panel hears arguments for halting recall
Federal judges refuse to postpone California recall
• Read the court's order (from FindLaw PDF)
VIDEO
CNN's Candy Crowley says the delay is good news for Gray Davis.
PLAY VIDEO
GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock says he is confident the court order to delay the California recall election will be overturned.
PLAY VIDEO
ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum says the U.S. 9th Circuit ruling postponing the recall election is a 'masterpiece'
PLAY VIDEO
SPECIAL REPORT
• Gallery: Who's running
• Map: Petition signatures
• Davis faces recall vote
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
California Recall
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Monday ordered California officials to halt preparations for the October 7 gubernatorial recall election, citing concerns about a "hurried, constitutionally infirm" process.

Specifically, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the state needed to upgrade its voting equipment first.

"The inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all," the court ruled, citing voting machines that the secretary of state's office has declared unfit.

Voters had been scheduled to go to the polls October 7 to decide whether to remove California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

But the ruling leaves the election in doubt -- at least for now. The court stayed its order for seven days to allow appeals. If Monday's ruling stands, the recall vote could be moved to March 2004, when it would share space on the ballot with California's presidential primary.

Davis, who Monday spent a second day campaigning with former President Clinton, said he was "prepared to conduct this election whenever the courts tell me the election is going to occur."

Davis had pushed for the recall vote to take place in March, when the state's presidential primary was expected to draw a higher Democratic turnout.

"It seems to me that the more people think about the recall, the more that decide to oppose it," he said.
ACLU objections

The ruling follows a hearing last week at which the American Civil Liberties Union argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

The ACLU said the punch-card system could disenfranchise voters in six counties, including Los Angeles, the state's largest. Those six counties include 44 percent of state voters and have heavy concentrations of minority voters.

A lower court last month had rejected the request, but the appeals court disagreed.

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court concluded, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election.

"The choice between holding a hurried, constitutionally infirm election and one held a short time later that assures voters that the 'rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied' is clear."

Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer for the ACLU, called the decision "a masterpiece."

"To those who say this will upset things, I suppose one answer is in fact this is going to give the voters of California more time to consider the issues and the character and the substance of the candidates," Rosenbaum said.

The 9th Circuit has a reputation as being one of the most liberal appellate courts in the federal judiciary, and its decisions are often reversed by the Supreme Court.
Appeal urged

Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- the leading Republican candidate to replace Davis should the recall succeed -- said he would continue his campaign for governor and called on Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to appeal the decision immediately.

"Historically, the courts have upheld the rights of voters, and I expect that the court will do so again in this case," he said.

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the leading Democrat among the 135 replacement candidates on the ballot, said he was confident the court would reach "a carefully thought out and considered decision.

"We will continue our campaign until there is finality in the courts," he said in a written statement after the decision.

But state Sen. Tom McClintock, one of the Republican candidates hoping to replace Davis should the recall succeed, said the ruling is "simply a distraction and will have no bearing on this election."

McClintock said the 9th Circuit "has become a national laughing stock" for previous rulings, such as one that found the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

"I have every confidence that, in a short time, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow this election to go forward," he said.

McClintock trails both Bustamante and Schwarzenegger in recent polls.

In Washington, officials at the Justice Department and the White House declined comment.

-- CNN Correspondents Bob Franken and Kelly Wallace contributed to this report.

This is from the September 10, 2003 program.

Daily Show On The CA Recall 9/10/03 (Small - 10 MB)



The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from KGO Channel 7 News in San Francisco on September 8, 2003.

Turns out you can vote early -- like NOW -- in the recall election, if you want to.

Here's more:

ABC Channel 7 News On Voting Early In the Recall (Small - 8 MB)

Dear Reader,

I was pleased to hear from Moveon.org that there were a lot of people who read Lisa's blog who oppose the recall the way I do. Thanks to all of you who took the time to sign their petition against it.

If you haven't already done so, why not take one minute to go to the following link and sign up NOW.

click here

http://Moveon.org is also involved in some very creative organizing around this issue as well as others.

Click on the link below to go to their website and print out a request for an absentee ballot form for YOUR county. Fill it out and send it in to your county registrar - they will provide the address to send it to right on the form.

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/register/

They had the brilliant idea of using the idea of Flash Mobs for organizing activities like handing out these registrations. If you want to spend a couple of hours this Saturday working on this issue, check out the link below.

click here

Well, that's all I have time for today but, I promise I'll be back with things YOU can do to make change happen.

Regards,
Bobby Lilly

In case you want to read the message they sent me today, here it is:

Dear MoveOn member, The outcome of the California recall will come down to this: the side that gets more people out to vote wins. Those behind the recall are counting on poor turnout. That's why we need to make sure that every friend, family member and colleague votes.

There is one fantastically simple way to do that: give them mail ballot request forms and make sure they complete and send them in. If everyone receiving this email did that with 10 like-minded friends, family members and colleagues, we could increase voter turnout against the recall by one million votes. Click below to print out your mail ballot request forms:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/register/

Mail voting is critical to beating the recall. More than half of normal polling places will be closed in this election due to time constraints, making many voters much less likely to get to a voting booth on October 7. Voting by mail is the answer.

This Saturday we're kicking off our vote by mail campaign with something fun. We're going to gather in groups of 30 to 50 volunteers across the state to hand out ballot request forms and information in our communities. In one day we will help tens of thousands to vote. We could change the outcome of the recall election on Saturday. Click here to learn more and to pick a place for a gathering in your area:

http://action.moveon.org/

Some of you have asked for help in those important conversations with your friends and family about the recall. Unfortunately, some of the most sensible and powerful arguments against the recall have been lost in the media circus. That's exactly why it is so important to talk about the recall with those who respect your opinion. Below are some points to help.

10 Reasons Why the Recall is Wrong:
A single congressman brought us the recall with $1.7 million of his own money -- while simultaneously putting himself forward as the man to replace the governor.
The recall threatens to give California a governor elected by a tiny percentage of the electorate -- and gives wealthy individuals an unprecedented opportunity to attempt to buy the governorship.
It threatens to invalidate a fair election just months after it took place.
It sets a dangerous precedent -- if it succeeds why wouldn't opponents attempt to recall every future governor?
It's expensive: The recall election itself will cost over $60 million.
It prevents our elected leaders from working to solve the state budget crisis and other important issues by forcing them to campaign to defend the results of a fair election.
The cost to the economy is too great: a successful recall would cause enormous economic instability and loss of confidence.
This won't stop in California: 18 states have recall provisions. Unless the California recall is decisively rejected, sore losers in others states will continue to use this tactic.
The recall threatens California’s environment. Governor Davis has made important improvements to environmental law. Polluters see the recall as a chance for roll-back.
Gray Davis has made important gains in education, health care, the environment and public safety. The recall is an attempt to reverse those advances.

Please help your friends and family to vote by printing out a mail ballot request form here:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/register/

And please join us this Saturday at events across the state to help us distribute tens of thousands of mail ballot request forms:

http://action.moveon.org/

Thank you,

--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
September 10th, 2003

PS: Nearly 100,000 Californian MoveOn members have taken our pledge to talk to friends and family about the recall. If you haven't signed the pledge, please help us reach our goal of 100,000 signers by Friday by clicking here:

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/

Also: Thanks to the participation of MoveOn members in our Defend Democracy campaign, the mainstream media is beginning to connect the dots between impeachment, Florida, Texas and the California recall. This New York Times editorial is just one example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09TUE4.html

"The more the G.O.P. persists in this, the more it hands the Democrats traction for their charge that Republicans are mischievously specializing -- as in the California recall -- in undoing normal elective processes."

This just in from my pal
Bobby Lilly.

Dear Lisa,

I got a notice from http://MoveOn.org asking me to sign a petition opposing the California Recall. You and I both know it's a power grab by the Republicans blaming a relatively unpopular governor for stuff HE didn't do and inflaming the political process just because some of them couldn't stand to LOSE the last election.

I signed to show my opposition to this misuse of the Recall process which I believe should be used against serious malfeasance by an elected official not just because someone had the money it took and thought they could get away with it.

I hope there are a lot more people out there besides the two of us willing to take the time to oppose this Recall which has become a media circus and just another reason for the rest of the country to dismiss Californians as kooks. People need to be educating themselves about the unreality of the charges against Davis and realize that changing leadership at this point is NOT going to make the economic woes of this state (which are very similar to the problems states all across the country are facing) any better and all of us who believe it is WRONG need to be sure we are registered and get to the polls and VOTE it down.

In the meantime, I'm writing to ask you to join me in signing a "Recall No! Democracy Yes!" pledge to defeat the California recall AND pass it on. Click here to sign:
http://moveon.org/pac/recall?id=-1744928-coYdH6bxsqDEmbLGkTJDog

This is the message Moveon sent to me:

If the recall succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent for the whole country. A far-right businessman spent 1.7 million dollars to bring us the recall campaign, and has thrown California into chaos. GOP leaders who should have condemned the recall instead cheered it on, hoping they could gain from the unraveling of our democracy. We can't stand by and let this happen. These attacks on democracy are not a California issue or a Texas issue or a Florida issue -- we all must step forward together and make it clear that elections will be honored in this country. This pledge is a national effort to mobilize one million California voters in the recall election. Please sign the pledge no matter where you live and please ask friends and family in California to sign the pledge and to remember to vote October 7.
http://moveon.org/pac/recall?id=-1744928-coYdH6bxsqDEmbLGkTJDog

Thank you.

There's a an interview from OUI magazine in 1977 that has seen the light of day recently on the smoking gun.

I caught the last half of an interview on KTVU Channel 2 News in San Francisco with Smoking Gun reporter Andrew Goldberg about republishing the Arnie OUI interview.

I thought you might find it interesting.

This is from around 7:00 am on August 29, 2003.


KTVU - Andrew Golberg, Smoking Gun Reporter (Small - 4 MB)

Lisa's voting NO on the recall and for Cruz Bustamante.

This is from the August 20, 2003 program.

CA Recall Update (Smart - 6 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the August 20, 2003 program.

Rob Lowe As Arnie's Political Advisor (Small - 6 MB)

Lisa's voting NO on the recall and YES on Cruz Bustamante.

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from early February 2003 sometime. (Sorry I can't be more exact!)

I forgot to link to this before, but with Arianna running for Governor in the CA Recall, it seemed relevant to make this available to you.

Arianna Huffington On The Daily Show - Part 1 of 3 (Lres - 26 MB)

Arianna Huffington On The Daily Show - Part 2 of 3 (Lres - 29 MB)

Arianna Huffington On The Daily Show - Part 3 of 3 (Lres - 26 MB)

Lisa is voting NO on the recall and YES on Cruz Bustamante.

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This makes about as much sense as any other part of this recall, I suppose.

How transparent of Taco Hell. But now that I've thought about it, rather brilliant.

Who says you can't buy votes anyway? That's exactly what they're doing.

Even I have become a pawn in their little game bringing this to you now.

Who Says You Can't Buy Votes

At participating locations for a limited time. This promotion is solely sponsored by Taco Bell Corp., and is not affiliated with nor has it been endorsed by any other entity. © 2003 Taco Bell Corp.

*Product results will be indexed to pre-promotion levels to insure fairness to all candidates. We’ve assigned one Taco Bell® product to the Governor and one to the leading candidate of the opposing party, along with one product for all other candidates: †IRIS ADAM, BROOKE ADAMS, ALEX-ST. JAMES, DOUGLAS ANDERSON, ANGELYNE, MOHAMMAD ARIF, BADI BADIOZAMANI, VIK S. BAJWA, JOHN W. BEARD, ED BEYER, VIP BHOLA, CHERYL BLY-CHESTER, AUDIE BOCK, JOEL BRITTON, ART BROWN, JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURTON, CRUZ M. BUSTAMANTE,

Here is the full text of what was text on the page. Most are gifs -- which I have saved if this site ever gets taken down, so just let me know.

http://www.tacobell.com/2003recall/

At participating locations for a limited time. This promotion is solely sponsored by Taco Bell Corp., and is not affiliated with nor has it been endorsed by any other entity. © 2003 Taco Bell Corp.

*Product results will be indexed to pre-promotion levels to insure fairness to all candidates. We’ve assigned one Taco Bell® product to the Governor and one to the leading candidate of the opposing party, along with one product for all other candidates: †IRIS ADAM, BROOKE ADAMS, ALEX-ST. JAMES, DOUGLAS ANDERSON, ANGELYNE, MOHAMMAD ARIF, BADI BADIOZAMANI, VIK S. BAJWA, JOHN W. BEARD, ED BEYER, VIP BHOLA, CHERYL BLY-CHESTER, AUDIE BOCK, JOEL BRITTON, ART BROWN, JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURTON, CRUZ M. BUSTAMANTE, PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO, TODD CARSON, WILLIAM ”BILL” S. CHAMBERS, MICHAEL CHELI, D. (LOGAN DARROW) CLEMENTS, GARY COLEMAN, MARY “MARY CAREY” COOK, ROBERT CULLENBINE, SCOTT DAVIS, ROBERT “BUTCH” DOLE, BOB LYNN EDWARDS, WARREN FARRELL, DAN FEINSTEIN, LARRY FLYNT, LORRAINE (ABNER ZURD) FONTANES, GENE FORTE, DIANA FOSS, RONALD J. FRIEDMAN, LEO GALLAGHER, GEROLD LEE GORMAN, RICH GOSSE, JAMES H. GREEN, JACK LOYD GRISHAM, GARRETT GRUENER, JOE GUZZARDI, IVAN A. HALL, KEN HAMIDI, SARA ANN HANLON, C. STEPHEN HENDERSON, RALPH A. HERNANDEZ, JOHN J. ”JACK” HICKEY, JIM HOFFMANN, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, S. ISSA, MICHAEL JACKSON, TREK THUNDER KELLY, EDWARD “ED” KENNEDY, D.E. KESSINGER, KELLY P. KIMBALL, STEPHEN L. KNAPP, ERIC KOREVAAR, JERRY KUNZMAN, DICK LANE, GARY LEONARD, TODD RICHARD LEWIS, CALVIN Y. LOUIE, FRANK A. MACALUSO, JR., PAUL “CHIP” MAILANDER, ROBERT C. MANNHEIM, BRUCE MARGOLIN, PAUL MARIANO, GINO MARTORANA, MIKE P. MCCARTHY, BOB MCCLAIN, TOM MCCLINTOCK, DENNIS DUGGAN MCMAHON, MIKE MCNEILLY, SCOTT A. MEDNICK, CARL A. MEHR, JONATHAN MILLER, DARRYL L. MOBLEY, JEFFREY L. MOCK, JOHN “JACK” MORTENSEN, DORENE MUSILLI, PAUL NAVE, ROBERT C. NEWMAN II, LEONARD PADILLA, RONALD JASON PALMIERI, GREGORY J. PAWLIK, HEATHER PETERS, CHARLES “CHUCK” PINEDA JR., BILL PRADY, DARIN PRICE, BRYAN QUINN, JEFF RAINFORTH, DANIEL C. ”DANNY” RAMIREZ, CHRISTOPHER RANKEN, REVA RENEE RENZ, DANIEL W. RICHARDS, KEVIN RICHTER, KURT E. “TACHIKAZE” RIGHTMYER, DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON, NED ROSCOE, SHARON RUSHFORD, GEORGY RUSSELL, JAMIE ROSEMARY SAFFORD, DAVID RONALD SAMS, DARRIN H. SCHEIDLE, MIKE SCHMIER, GEORGE B. SCHWARTZMAN, RICHARD J. SIMMONS, BILL SIMON, B.E. SMITH, RANDALL D. SPRAGUE, CHRISTOPHER SPROUL, LAWRENCE STEVEN STRAUSS, TIM SYLVESTER, A. LAVAR TAYLOR, DIANE BEALL TEMPLIN, PATRICIA G. TILLEY, BRIAN TRACY, WILLIAM TSANGARES, PETER V. UEBERROTH, MARC VALDEZ, JAMES M. VANDEVENTER JR., PAUL W. VANN, BILL VAUGHN, VAN VO, CHUCK WALKER, MAURICE WALKER, NATHAN WHITECLOUD WALTON, DANIEL WATTS, C.T. WEBER, JIM WEIR, LINGEL H. WINTERS, MICHAEL J. WOZNIAK, JON W. ZELLHOEFER

I sure hope he's not our next Governor, but his story is a pretty interesting one.

Schwarzenegger's Next Goal on Dogged, Ambitious Path
By Bernard Weinraub And Charlie Leduff for the NY Times.

Thirty-five years ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an unknown Austrian bodybuilder who spoke only a few words of English, had little money and no acting experience, came to the United States and soon made a prediction: He would become a movie star, make millions of dollars, marry a glamorous wife and wield political power...

By all accounts, Mr. Schwarzenegger's drive to succeed was not merely an immigrant's classic up-by-the-bootstraps obsession. It was a calculated effort to turn himself into an invulnerable and powerful (physical and otherwise) figure. He was also a far cry from the skinny Austrian boy whose father, Gustav, a policeman and a one-time member of the Nazi Party, intimidated and sometimes beat him, favoring his other son, Menhard, according to published accounts of Mr. Schwarzenegger's life. (Mr. Schwarzenegger did not attend the funeral of his father in 1972, or that of his brother, who died in a car crash in 1971.)...

But the scrutiny of Mr. Schwarzenegger has only begun. So far he has not clarified his positions on most public issues, including offshore oil drilling, the state's budget crisis and immigration.

On abortion, however, he has said that he is for women's right to choose. On business, he has said he would bring more of it to the state to generate more revenue. And as for his economic view, Mr. Schwarzenegger was quoted in The Sacramento Bee as saying, "I still believe in lower taxes - and the power of the free market."...

The Los Angeles Times, in a recent investigation of his finances, estimated that his fortune far exceeded $200 million. This included real estate investments and a significant ownership in Dimensional Fund Advisors, a mutual fund company in Santa Monica that manages about $40 billion.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has climbed a social as well as political ladder. He used his early fame to get acquainted with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. When "Pumping Iron," was released, Mr. Schwarzenegger told the film's publicity agent, Bobby Zarem, that the one person he wanted to meet was Mrs. Onassis. Mr. Zarem spoke to a friend who worked for Mrs. Onassis. A luncheon meeting was arranged at Elaine's in New York to introduce the relatively unknown Mr. Schwarzenegger to Mrs. Onassis, Andy Warhol and others. A photograph of Mr. Schwarzenegger talking to Mrs. Onassis was widely distributed, and his celebrity grew...

Mr. Butler, who still keeps in touch with Mr. Schwarzenegger, put it another way. "Arnold is one of the most political people I've ever met," Mr. Butler said. "Everything he does is political. He has an uncanny ability to go to a meeting, get into an elevator, sit down with people in a restaurant, and immediately assess their strengths and weakness. He manipulates."...

Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign team for the run for governor consists of Mr. Wilson, a Republican whose support for rigid measures to combat illegal immigration contrasted with his moderate approach to abortion and other social issues, and some senior members of his old Sacramento crew, including Bob White, his longtime strategist.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has drawn other powerful and well-know figures to his cause. Warren Buffett, the billionaire financier and a friend of Mr. Schwarzenegger, came aboard as a financial consultant, and George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan and friend of Mr. Wilson from the Hoover Institute, is helping the campaign...

Mr. Schwarzenegger did not vote in the last two presidential elections, according to election records. And over the last 20 years he has given more money to Democrats than Republicans, albeit all of the Democrats are Kennedys...

Some Republican conservatives have held back in supporting Mr. Mr. Schwarzenegger's candidacy. On social policies, at least, Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to hold views that conflict with hard-cover conservatives in the party. His outlook can best be summed up in an interview he gave to The Sunday Telegraph magazine in November 1999 in which he admonished his party members to alter their approach.

The Republican Party, Mr. Schwarzenegger said, "is going to lose until you become a party of inclusion." He went on to say, "that you love the foreigner that comes in with no money, as much as a gay person, as a lesbian person, as anyone else - someone who is uneducated, someone who's from the inner-city."

Lisa's voting NO on the Recall and YES on Cruz Bustamante.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/national/17ARNO.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=


Schwarzenegger's Next Goal on Dogged, Ambitious Path
By Bernard Weinraub And Charlie Leduff
The New York Times

Sunday 17 August 2003

LOS ANGELES - Thirty-five years ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an unknown Austrian bodybuilder who spoke only a few words of English, had little money and no acting experience, came to the United States and soon made a prediction: He would become a movie star, make millions of dollars, marry a glamorous wife and wield political power.

As far-fetched as some of his aspirations might have seemed to some, all of Mr. Schwarzenegger's predictions have come true - except the last.

In stepping into the bizarre race to recall California's governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, the 56-year-old former Mr. Universe, is seeking to fulfill what he called his "master plan" as he once sat talking with bodybuilder friends at an International House of Pancakes in Santa Monica.

By all accounts, Mr. Schwarzenegger's drive to succeed was not merely an immigrant's classic up-by-the-bootstraps obsession. It was a calculated effort to turn himself into an invulnerable and powerful (physical and otherwise) figure. He was also a far cry from the skinny Austrian boy whose father, Gustav, a policeman and a one-time member of the Nazi Party, intimidated and sometimes beat him, favoring his other son, Menhard, according to published accounts of Mr. Schwarzenegger's life. (Mr. Schwarzenegger did not attend the funeral of his father in 1972, or that of his brother, who died in a car crash in 1971.)

"What fascinated Arnold was money and power, and what money and power bestow on an individual," said George Butler, producer and director of "Pumping Iron," the 1976 documentary that became Mr. Schwarzenegger's first successful film.

"The past meant nothing to Arnold because it was over," Mr. Butler said. "He never looked over his shoulder. This is a man of bottomless ambition. It's always been there. Nothing's happened in the last few days that hasn't happened before. He sees himself as almost mystically sent to America."

Mr. Schwarzenegger has long-professed an interest in politics but his run for governor is coming as his movie career is ebbing. From 1982, with the release of "Conan the Barbarian," to 1991, when "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," was distributed, Mr. Schwarzenegger was one of the world's top stars.

But "Last Action Hero," 1992, was a costly flop that began a career slide for Mr. Schwarzenegger. As he grew older, Mr. Schwarzenegger performed in a series of comedies: "Twins" was successful but "Junior" and "Jingle All the Way" were not. More recently, his action films - "Collateral Damage," "The 6th Day" and "End of Days" - were box office disappointments. His current film, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," has taken in more than $145 million at the box office, but its high costs may not make it very profitable in the United States.

His insatiable appetite for success and his impeccable sense of timing have led him to this moment, says his best friend and former workout partner, Franco Columbu. "He knows how to leave the stage on top," Mr. Columbu said. "He's looking to invent something new."

As a public figure, Mr. Schwarzenegger has a recognizable name that gives him an enormous advantage over most of the 134 other candidates who have been certified to run in the Oct. 7 recall election to replace Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

But the scrutiny of Mr. Schwarzenegger has only begun. So far he has not clarified his positions on most public issues, including offshore oil drilling, the state's budget crisis and immigration.

On abortion, however, he has said that he is for women's right to choose. On business, he has said he would bring more of it to the state to generate more revenue. And as for his economic view, Mr. Schwarzenegger was quoted in The Sacramento Bee as saying, "I still believe in lower taxes - and the power of the free market."

Mr. Schwarzenegger is also facing nagging questions about his personal life as well as on the details of his finances.

A detailed profile in 2001 in Premiere Magazine accused Mr. Schwarzenegger of being a habitual womanizer, behaving crudely and cheating on his wife, Maria Shriver. Mr. Schwarzenegger dismissed the assertions as "trash."

The Los Angeles Times, in a recent investigation of his finances, estimated that his fortune far exceeded $200 million. This included real estate investments and a significant ownership in Dimensional Fund Advisors, a mutual fund company in Santa Monica that manages about $40 billion.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has climbed a social as well as political ladder. He used his early fame to get acquainted with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. When "Pumping Iron," was released, Mr. Schwarzenegger told the film's publicity agent, Bobby Zarem, that the one person he wanted to meet was Mrs. Onassis. Mr. Zarem spoke to a friend who worked for Mrs. Onassis. A luncheon meeting was arranged at Elaine's in New York to introduce the relatively unknown Mr. Schwarzenegger to Mrs. Onassis, Andy Warhol and others. A photograph of Mr. Schwarzenegger talking to Mrs. Onassis was widely distributed, and his celebrity grew.

"He took seriously his ability to charm and coax people and do exactly what he wanted," Mr. Zarem said. "He knew 25 years ago where he was going."

Mr. Butler, who still keeps in touch with Mr. Schwarzenegger, put it another way. "Arnold is one of the most political people I've ever met," Mr. Butler said. "Everything he does is political. He has an uncanny ability to go to a meeting, get into an elevator, sit down with people in a restaurant, and immediately assess their strengths and weakness. He manipulates."

Stress and Fantasy Growing Up

Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger was born on July 30, 1947, in Thal, Austria, near Graz, and grew up there. His mother was a homemaker.

Wendy Leigh, author of an unauthorized biography of the actor, wrote this year in an Australian newspaper that the elder Mr. Schwarzenegger had a "brutal temper" and "gloried in pitting his two sons against each other." Arnold usually came out the loser in these boxing and running matches. Mr. Schwarzenegger has said that he was raised "under great discipline."

As a boy, Mr. Schwarzenegger found escape in the movie house and became a fan of Reg Park, a body builder who starred in B Hercules movies. Mr. Schwarzenegger would model his life after Mr. Park's. In his 1977 biography, "Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder," Mr. Schwarzenegger said that Mr. Park became his fantasy "father figure."

Mr. Schwarzenegger said his parents ridiculed him and called his dreams of building his body and becoming a movie star a lazy and nonsensical pursuit. "It was a very uptight feeling at home," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in "Pumping Iron." "I always felt I belonged in America."

Mr. Schwarzenegger's luck turned when he met Joe Weider, who had built a worldwide fitness empire and was the power behind the International Federation of Body Building, which sponsored contests like Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia. Impressed with Mr. Schwarzenegger's charm and humor, convinced that Mr. Schwarzenegger was the kind of figure who could turn bodybuilding into a mainstream sport, Mr. Weider brought him to America in 1968.

"I knew, and he knew, that he could be great," Mr. Weider said. "We created Arnold. He was special because he was tall, he had willpower, charm and above all he wanted to win."

At 20, Mr. Schwarzenegger became the youngest man to win the Mr. Universe title, the sport's top amateur prize. (He went on to win four more Mr. Universe crowns.) But initially he could not beat Sergio Oliva, for the professional title, Mr. Olympia. He finally dethroned Mr. Oliva in 1969 at a body building competition held at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

Mr. Schwarzenegger's movie debut in 1970 was inauspicious. It was the now-forgotten "Hercules in New York" or sometimes called "Hercules Goes Bananas." For the movie, he was renamed Arnold Strong, and played opposite the diminutive actor, Arnold Stang.

Early Appeal of Republicans

Television stirred Mr. Schwarzenegger's interest in politics, and in particular, Republicans. Mr. Columbu said that he and Mr. Schwarzenegger began watching television news in the late 1960's and decided that Republicans were far more appealing than Democrats.

The Democrats, Mr. Columbu said, reminded them of the dreary socialism they had left behind in Europe. The Republicans, he said they felt, were about hard work, self-sufficiency and a muscular foreign policy.

"We were mad at Europe," said Mr. Columbu, who was born in Sardinia. "We were coming here because we thought America was better than Europe. We liked Nixon because he told Europe it had to pull its weight. Basically, Europe was old and you couldn't get anywhere there. America was the place."

In the early 1980's Mr. Columbu, now a chiropractor, invited one of his patients, Dana Rohrabacher, a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, to have dinner with the action hero.

"When I first met him, he talked about how much he loved America, how much he admired Reagan," said Mr. Rohrabacher, now a congressman from Huntington Beach. "I remember him saying, `Dana, some day I'm going to be governor of California and I'm going to call you.' I knew he was a guy going places."

Mr. Schwarzenegger's film stardom led him to meet top Republicans like Mr. Reagan, Vice President George Bush and Pete Wilson, then a senator from California and eventually the governor. Although he keeps a bust of Mr. Reagan in his office, Mr. Schwarzenegger grew especially close to Mr. Bush, admiring his pragmatism and world view and regular style of speech.

Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign team for the run for governor consists of Mr. Wilson, a Republican whose support for rigid measures to combat illegal immigration contrasted with his moderate approach to abortion and other social issues, and some senior members of his old Sacramento crew, including Bob White, his longtime strategist.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has drawn other powerful and well-know figures to his cause. Warren Buffett, the billionaire financier and a friend of Mr. Schwarzenegger, came aboard as a financial consultant, and George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan and friend of Mr. Wilson from the Hoover Institute, is helping the campaign.

Also in the foreground is Mr. Schwarzenegger's wife, who is a network television journalist and a member of the Kennedy family, the paragons of Democratic Party politics. Ms. Shriver is said to provide the counterbalance to the Republican strategists. She was said to be displeased with the round of early television show appearances in which her sleepy-eyed husband kicked off his campaign the morning after announcing his intentions on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. As a consequence, Team Schwarzenegger was reshuffled.

"She's looking at it as his wife," said Sheri Annis, a former consultant to Mr. Schwarzenegger. "I don't think she's Hillary Clinton. She's looking to advance Arnold, not herself."

Mr. Schwarzenegger did not vote in the last two presidential elections, according to election records. And over the last 20 years he has given more money to Democrats than Republicans, albeit all of the Democrats are Kennedys.

Some Republican conservatives have held back in supporting Mr. Mr. Schwarzenegger's candidacy. On social policies, at least, Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to hold views that conflict with hard-cover conservatives in the party. His outlook can best be summed up in an interview he gave to The Sunday Telegraph magazine in November 1999 in which he admonished his party members to alter their approach.

The Republican Party, Mr. Schwarzenegger said, "is going to lose until you become a party of inclusion." He went on to say, "that you love the foreigner that comes in with no money, as much as a gay person, as a lesbian person, as anyone else - someone who is uneducated, someone who's from the inner-city."

Getting Into Power Clique

Mr. Schwarzenegger's thin political resumé includes a stint as chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness under the first President George Bush, and sponsor of last year's successful California ballot initiative Proposition 49, which channeled state money into after-school programs. It also introduced him into the Sacramento power clique.

He is involved in numerous charities, including the Special Olympics and the Inner-City Games.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has, in the past, admitted taking steroids to enhance his body building. In 1997, after Mr. Schwarzenegger had heart valve replacements, his doctor said that the damage was not caused by steroid use, but was rather a congenital defect.

Around 1990, at the time he was nominated by the first President Bush to lead the fitness council, and aware that he might seek a political future, Mr. Schwarzenegger went to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles in an attempt to gauge the political consequences of his father's past. He asked officials at the center to investigate his father's ties to the Nazi Party, during World War II.

"He said that for years his father served in World War II, and he wanted to know exactly what he did," recalled Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Rabbi Hier said investigators found that Mr. Schwarzenegger's father had tried to join the Nazi Party in 1938, and was accepted for membership in 1941. He said that investigators found no evidence that the elder Mr. Schwarzenegger had committed war crimes.

"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.' "

Since then, Rabbi Hier said, Mr. Schwarzenegger and his wife have become very supportive of the Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance. He said the couple had been the hosts of numerous fund-raising events at their home and had donated more than $1 million to the center.

"No other star has given that kind of money," Rabbi Hier. "He is a friend not only of the center but the state of Israel."

But Mr. Schwarzenegger and Ms. Shriver surprised their friends by inviting Kurt Waldheim, the former United Nations secretary general, to their wedding in 1986. At the time, Mr. Waldheim, who was running for president of Austria, was denying accusations that he had concealed knowledge of war crimes committed by his German Army unit in World War II.

Mr. Waldheim did not attend the wedding, but sent the couple an elaborate gift - life-size papier-mâché statues of themselves.

Ms. Leigh wrote in her unauthorized biography of Mr. Schwarzenegger that he startled guests at his wedding with his nuptial toast: "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does, too, and so thank you, Kurt."

Mr. Schwarzenegger, who lives with Ms. Shriver and their four children in an estate in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles, is plainly confident that he will triumph in politics. Just as he has triumphed in body building and the movies. As he said in "Pumping Iron": "I was always dreaming of very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years."

Arnie and Kenneth Lay and Dick Cheney had meetings together during the California Energy Crisis/Scandal. How interesting.

Ahnuld, Ken Lay, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Gray Davis
By Jason Leopold for Commondreams.org.

Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t talking. The Hollywood action film star and California’s GOP gubernatorial candidate in the state’s recall election has been unusually silent about his plans for running the Golden State. He hasn’t yet offered up a solution for the state’s $38 billion budget deficit, an issue that largely got more than one million people to sign a petition to recall Gov. Gray Davis.

More important, however, Schwarzenegger still won’t respond to questions about why he was at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills two years ago where he, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and junk bond king Michael Milken, met secretly with former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay who was touting a plan for solving the state’s energy crisis. Other luminaries who were invited but didn’t attend the May 24, 2001 meeting included former Los Angeles Laker Earvin “Magic” Johnson and supermarket magnate Ron Burkle.

While Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken listened to Lay’s pitch, Gov. Davis pleaded with President George Bush to enact much needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour. Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29, 2001, five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger, to discuss the California power crisis.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0817-07.htm

Ahnuld, Ken Lay, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Gray Davis
By Jason Leopold
CommonDreams.org

Sunday 17 August 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t talking. The Hollywood action film star and California’s GOP gubernatorial candidate in the state’s recall election has been unusually silent about his plans for running the Golden State. He hasn’t yet offered up a solution for the state’s $38 billion budget deficit, an issue that largely got more than one million people to sign a petition to recall Gov. Gray Davis.

More important, however, Schwarzenegger still won’t respond to questions about why he was at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills two years ago where he, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and junk bond king Michael Milken, met secretly with former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay who was touting a plan for solving the state’s energy crisis. Other luminaries who were invited but didn’t attend the May 24, 2001 meeting included former Los Angeles Laker Earvin “Magic” Johnson and supermarket magnate Ron Burkle.

While Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken listened to Lay’s pitch, Gov. Davis pleaded with President George Bush to enact much needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour. Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29, 2001, five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger, to discuss the California power crisis.

At the meeting, Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused saying California legislators designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that’s what caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket. It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said. However, Bush’s response appears to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis. It worked. According to recent polls, a majority of voters grew increasingly frustrated with the way Davis handled the power crisis. Schwarzenegger has used the energy crisis and missteps by Davis to bolster his standing with potential voters. While Davis took a beating in the press (some energy companies ran attack ads against the governor), Lay used his political clout to gather support for deregulation.

A couple of weeks before Lay met with Schwarzenegger in May 2001, the PBS news program “Frontline” interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Lay met with privately a month earlier. Cheney was asked by a correspondent from Frontline whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California.

“No,” Cheney said during the Frontline interview. “The problem you had in California was caused by a combination of things--an unwise regulatory scheme, because they didn't really deregulate. Now they’re trapped from unwise regulatory schemes, plus not having addressed the supply side of the issue. They've obviously created major problems for themselves and bankrupted PG&E in the process.”

A month before the Frontline interview and Bush’s meeting with Davis, Cheney, who chairs Bush’s energy task force, met with Lay to discuss Bush’s National Energy Policy. Lay, whose company was the largest contributor to Bush’s presidential campaign, made some recommendations that would financially benefit his company. Lay gave Cheney a memo that included eight recommendations for the energy policy. Of the eight, seven were included in the final draft. The energy policy was released in late May 2001, after Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken met with Lay and after the meeting between Bush and Davis and Cheney’s Frontline interview.

The policy made only scant references to California's energy crisis, which Enron was accused of igniting, and did not indicate what should be done to provide the state some relief. Cheney said the policy focused on long-term solutions to the country's energy needs, such as opening up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and freeing up transmission lines. That's why California was ignored in the report, Cheney said.

What’s unknown to many of the voters who will decide Davis’s fate on Oct. 7, the day of the recall election, is that while Cheney dismissed Davis’s accusations that power companies were withholding electricity supplies from the state, one company engaged in exactly the type of behavior that Davis described. But Davis would never be told about the manipulative tactics the energy company engaged.

In a confidential settlement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose chairman was appointed by Bush a year earlier, Tulsa, Okla., based-Williams Companies agreed to refund California $8 million in profits it reaped by deliberately shutting down one of its power plants in the state in the spring of 2000 to drive up the wholesale price of electricity in California.

The evidence, a transcript of a tape-recorded telephone conversation between an employee at Williams and an employee at a Southern California power plant operated by Williams, shows how the two conspired to jack up power prices and create an artificial electricity shortage by keeping the power plant out of service for two weeks.

Details of the settlement had been under seal by FERC for more than a year and were released in November after the Wall Street Journal sued the commission to obtain the full copy of its report. Similarly, FERC also found that Reliant Energy engaged in identical behavior around the same time as Williams and in February the commission ordered Reliant to pay California a $13.8 million settlement.

Had the evidence been released in 2001 when Davis accused energy companies of fraud it would have helped California’s case and voters may have viewed the governor more positively. But if FERC were to publicly release the details of the Williams settlement it wouldn't have jibed with Bush's energy policy, which was made public instead in May 2001. It's highly unlikely that Bush, Cheney and members of the energy task force were kept in the dark about the Williams scam, especially since the findings of the investigation by FERC took place around the same time the policy was being drafted.

But Davis was still causing problems for Lay. California’s power woes had a ripple effect, forcing other states to cancel plans to open up their electricity markets to competition fearing deregulation would lead to widespread blackouts and price gouging. For Enron, a company that generated most of its revenue from buying and selling power and natural gas on the open market, such a move would paralyze the company.

Fearing that Davis would take steps to re-regulate California’s power market that Lay spent years lobbying California lawmakers to open up to competition, Lay recruited Schwarzenegger, Riordan, Milken, and other powerful business leaders like Bruce Karatz, chief executive of home builder Kaufman & Broad; Ray Irani, chief executive of Occidental Petroleum; and Kevin Sharer, chief executive of biotech giant Amgen.

The 90-minute secret meeting Lay convened took place inside a conference room at the Peninsula Hotel. Lay, and other Enron representatives at the meeting, handed out a four-page document to Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken titled “Comprehensive Solution for California,” which called for an end to federal and state investigations into Enron’s role in the California energy crisis and said consumers should pay for the state’s disastrous experiment with deregulation through multibillion rate increases. Another bullet point in the four-page document said “Get deregulation right this time -- California needs a real electricity market, not government takeovers.”

The irony of that statement is that California’s flawed power market design helped Enron earn more than $500 million in one year, a tenfold increase in profits from a previous year and it’s coordinated effort in manipulating the price of electricity in California, which other power companies mimicked, cost the state close to $70 billion and led to the beginning of what is now the state’s $38 billion budget deficit. The power crisis forced dozens of businesses to close down or move to other states, where cheaper electricity was in abundant supply, and greatly reduced the revenue California relied heavily upon.

Lay asked the participants to support his plan and lobby the state Legislature to make it a law. It’s unclear whether Schwarzenegger held a stake in Enron at the time or if he followed through on Lay’s request. His spokesman, Rob Stutzman, hasn’t returned numerous calls for comment about the meeting. For Schwarzenegger and the others who attended the meeting, associating with Enron, particularly Ken Lay, the disgraced chairman of the high-flying energy company, during the peak of California’s power crisis in May 2001 could be compared to meeting with Osama bin Laden after 9-11 to understand why terrorism isn’t necessarily such a heinous act.

A person who attended the meeting at the Peninsula, which this reporter wrote about two years ago, said Lay invited Schwarzenegger and Riordan because the two were being courted in 2001 as GOP gubernatorial candidates. A week before the meeting, Davis signed legislation to create a state power authority that would buy, operate and build power plants in lieu of out-of-state energy companies, such as Enron, that the governor alleged was ripping off the state.

For Enron’s Lay, the timing of the meeting was crucial. His company was just five months away from disintegrating and he was doing everything in his power to keep his company afloat and the profits rolling in.

It wasn’t until Enron collapsed in October 2001 and evidence of the company’s manipulative trading tactics emerged that FERC began to take a look at the company’s role in California’s electricity crisis. Since then, memos written by former Enron traders were uncovered, with colorful names like “Fat Boy” and “Death Star,” that contained the blueprint for ripping off California.

Enron’s top trader on the West Coast, Timothy Belden, the mastermind behind the scheme, pleaded guilty in December to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and has agreed to cooperate with federal investigators who are still trying to get to the bottom of the crisis.

California is still demanding that FERC order the energy companies to refund the state $8.9 billion for overcharging the state for electricity during its yearlong energy crisis. But FERC says California is due no more than $1.2 billion in refunds because the state still owes the energy companies $1.8 billion in unpaid power bills.

Davis, who refused to cave in to the demands of companies like Enron even while Democrats, Republicans and the public criticized him, was right all along. Maybe Californians ought to cut Davis some slack.

-------

Jason Leopold (jasonleopold@hotmail.com) spent two years covering California's energy crisis as bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. He is currently working on a book about the crisis.

Power Outage Traced to Dim Bulb in White House
The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800 Jobs From New York, Carted Off $90 Million, Then Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights
By Greg Palast.

California fell first. The power companies spent $39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed by Ralph Nadar which would have blocked the de-reg scam. Another $37 million was spent on lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of the state's politicians to write a lie into law: in the deregulation act's preamble, the Legislature promised that deregulation would reduce electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when in the first California city to go "lawless," San Diego, the 20% savings became a 300% jump in surcharges.

Enron circled California and licked its lips. As the number one contributor to the George W. Bush campaigns, it was confident about the future. With just a half dozen other companies it controlled at times 100% of the available power capacity needed to keep the Golden State lit. Their motto, "your money or your lights."

Enron and its comrades played the system like a broken ATM machine, yanking out the bills. For example, in the shamelessly fixed "auctions" for electricity held by the state, Enron bid, in one instance, to supply 500 megawatts of electricity over a 15 megawatt line. That's like pouring a gallon of gasoline into a thimble -- the lines would burn up if they attempted it. Faced with blackout because of Enron's destructive bid, the state was willing to pay anything to keep the lights on...

Californians have found the solution to the deregulation disaster: re-call the only governor in the nation with the cojones to stand up to the electricity price fixers. And unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis stood alone against the bad guys without using a body double. Davis called Reliant Corp of Houston a pack of "pirates" --and now he'll walk the plank for daring to stand up to the Texas marauders.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0

Power Outage Traced to Dim Bulb in White House
The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800 Jobs From New York,
Carted Off $90 Million, Then Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights
Greg Palast
ZNet

Friday 15 August 2003

I can tell you all about the ne're-do-wells that put out our lights tonight. I came up against these characters -- the Niagara Mohawk Power Company -- some years back. You see, before I was a journalist, I worked for a living, as an investigator of corporate racketeers. In the 1980s, "NiMo" built a nuclear plant, Nine Mile Point, a brutally costly piece of hot junk for which NiMo and its partner companies charged billions to New York State's electricity ratepayers.

To pull off this grand theft by kilowatt, the NiMo-led consortium fabricated cost and schedule reports, then performed a Harry Potter job on the account books. In 1988, I showed a jury a memo from an executive from one partner, Long Island Lighting, giving a lesson to a NiMo honcho on how to lie to government regulators. The jury ordered LILCO to pay $4.3 billion and, ultimately, put them out of business.

And that's why, if you're in the Northeast, you're reading this by candlelight tonight. Here's what happened. After LILCO was hammered by the law, after government regulators slammed Niagara Mohawk and dozens of other book-cooking, document-doctoring utility companies all over America with fines and penalties totaling in the tens of billions of dollars, the industry leaders got together to swear never to break the regulations again. Their plan was not to follow the rules, but to ELIMINATE the rules. They called it "deregulation."

It was like a committee of bank robbers figuring out how to make safecracking legal.

But they dare not launch the scheme in the USA. Rather, in 1990, one devious little bunch of operators out of Texas, Houston Natural Gas, operating under the alias "Enron," talked an over-the-edge free-market fanatic, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, into licensing the first completely deregulated power plant in the hemisphere.

And so began an economic disease called "regulatory reform" that spread faster than SARS. Notably, Enron rewarded Thatcher's Energy Minister, one Lord Wakeham, with a bushel of dollar bills for 'consulting' services and a seat on Enron's board of directors. The English experiment proved the viability of Enron's new industrial formula: that the enthusiasm of politicians for deregulation was in direct proportion to the payola provided by power companies.

The power elite first moved on England because they knew Americans wouldn't swallow the deregulation snake oil easily. The USA had gotten used to cheap power available at the flick of switch. This was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1933, caged the man he thought to be the last of the power pirates, Samuel Insull. Wall Street wheeler-dealer Insull created the Power Trust, and six decades before Ken Lay, faked account books and ripped off consumers. To frustrate Insull and his ilk, FDR gave us the Federal Power Commission and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act which told electricity companies where to stand and salute. Detailed regulations limited charges to real expenditures plus a government-set profit. The laws banned power "trading" and required companies to keep the lights on under threat of arrest -- no blackout blackmail to hike rates.

Of particular significance as I write here in the dark, regulators told utilities exactly how much they had to spend to insure the system stayed in repair and the lights stayed on. Bureaucrats crawled along the wire and, like me, crawled through the account books, to make sure the power execs spent customers' money on parts and labor. If they didn't, we'd whack'm over the head with our thick rule books. Did we get in the way of these businessmen's entrepreneurial spirit? Damn right we did.

Most important, FDR banned political contributions from utility companies -- no 'soft' money, no 'hard' money, no money PERIOD.

But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to his departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave Democrats.

But Poppy Bush's gift of deregulating of wholesale prices set by the feds only got the power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed deregulation at the state level. There were only two states, California and Texas, big enough and Republican enough to put the electricity market con into operation.

California fell first. The power companies spent $39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed by Ralph Nadar which would have blocked the de-reg scam. Another $37 million was spent on lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of the state's politicians to write a lie into law: in the deregulation act's preamble, the Legislature promised that deregulation would reduce electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when in the first California city to go "lawless," San Diego, the 20% savings became a 300% jump in surcharges.

Enron circled California and licked its lips. As the number one contributor to the George W. Bush campaigns, it was confident about the future. With just a half dozen other companies it controlled at times 100% of the available power capacity needed to keep the Golden State lit. Their motto, "your money or your lights."

Enron and its comrades played the system like a broken ATM machine, yanking out the bills. For example, in the shamelessly fixed "auctions" for electricity held by the state, Enron bid, in one instance, to supply 500 megawatts of electricity over a 15 megawatt line. That's like pouring a gallon of gasoline into a thimble -- the lines would burn up if they attempted it. Faced with blackout because of Enron's destructive bid, the state was willing to pay anything to keep the lights on.

And the state did. According to Dr. Anjali Sheffrin, economist with the California state Independent System Operator which directs power deliveries, between May and November 2000, three power giants physically or "economically" withheld power from the state and concocted enough false bids to cost the California customers over $6.2 billion in excess charges.

It took until December 20, 2000, with the lights going out on the Golden Gate, for President Bill Clinton, once a deregulation booster, to find his lost Democratic soul and impose price caps in California and ban Enron from the market.

But the light-bulb buccaneers didn't have to wait long to put their hooks back into the treasure chest. Within seventy-two hours of moving into the White House, while he was still sweeping out the inaugural champagne bottles, George Bush the Second reversed Clinton's executive order and put the power pirates back in business in California. Enron, Reliant (aka Houston Industries), TXU (aka Texas Utilities) and the others who had economically snipped California's wires knew they could count on Dubya, who as governor of the Lone Star state cut them the richest deregulation deal in America.

Meanwhile, the deregulation bug made it to New York where Republican Governor George Pataki and his industry-picked utility commissioners ripped the lid off electric bills and relieved my old friends at Niagara Mohawk of the expensive obligation to properly fund the maintenance of the grid system.

And the Pataki-Bush Axis of Weasels permitted something that must have former New York governor Roosevelt spinning in his wheelchair in Heaven: They allowed a foreign company, the notoriously incompetent National Grid of England, to buy up NiMo, get rid of 800 workers and pocket most of their wages - producing a bonus for NiMo stockholders approaching $90 million.

Is tonight's black-out a surprise? Heck, no, not to us in the field who've watched Bush's buddies flick the switches across the globe. In Brazil, Houston Industries seized ownership of Rio de Janeiro's electric company. The Texans (aided by their French partners) fired workers, raised prices, cut maintenance expenditures and, CLICK! the juice went out so often the locals now call it, "Rio Dark."

So too the free-market British buckaroos controlling Niagara Mohawk raised prices, slashed staff, cut maintenance and CLICK! -- New York joins Brazil in the Dark Ages.

Californians have found the solution to the deregulation disaster: re-call the only governor in the nation with the cojones to stand up to the electricity price fixers. And unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis stood alone against the bad guys without using a body double. Davis called Reliant Corp of Houston a pack of "pirates" --and now he'll walk the plank for daring to stand up to the Texas marauders.

So where's the President? Just before he landed on the deck of the Abe Lincoln, the White House was so concerned about our brave troops facing the foe that they used the cover of war for a new push in Congress for yet more electricity deregulation. This has a certain logic: there's no sense defeating Iraq if a hostile regime remains in California.

Sitting in the dark, as my laptop battery runs low, I don't know if the truth about deregulation will ever see the light --until we change the dim bulb in the White House.

See Greg Palast's award-winning reports for BBC Television and the Guardian papers of Britain at www.GregPalast.com. Contact Palast at his New York office: media@gregpalast.com.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (Penguin USA) and the worstseller, "Democracy and Regulation," a guide to electricity deregulation published by the United Nations (written with T. MacGregor and J. Oppenheim).

This is from the August 7, 2003 program.

Here's the really, really funny part.

Here's the whole thing:

Rob Couddry On The CA Recall (Small - 8MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Lisa's voting against the recall and for Cruz Bustamante.

I'll be posting a lot of these ongoing recall election reports, so I'm just going to start dating them in the title of the blog entry so you can keep them apart.

This is from the August 7, 2003 program.

CA Gov Recall Update - August 7, 2003 (Small - 12 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Lisa's voting against the recall and for Cruz Bustamante.

This is from the August 8, 2003 on KTVU Channel 2 News in San Francisco.

KTVU Recall Update - August 8 (Small - 11 MB)

Lisa's voting against the recall and for Cruz Bustamante.

This is from the August 7, 2003 program on KTVU Channel 2 News in San Francisco.

KTVU Recall Update - August 7 (Small - 27 MB)

This is from August 4, 2003 -- but there'll be lots more where that came from from the Daily Show on the CA Gov Recall from last week.

The Daily Show On The CA Recall Election (Small - 8 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the July 24, 2003 program.

California Gov. Recall Update - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 7 MB)

California Gov. Recall Update - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 7 MB)

California Gov. Recall Update - ALL (Small - 13 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Or as I like to call it, the "Let's blow another 30 million the state doesn't have drawing attention away from the energy scandal, instead of focusing on getting our 7 Billion back from the real crooks" campaign.

These are both from the June 17, 2003 Daily Show.

Jon Stewart On The CA Recall (Small - 6 MB)

Lewis Black On The CA Recall (Small - 9 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)