| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| The Times Leaks on Arnold | |
| 2003-10-07 | |
| What did the Democrats know and when did they know it? by Bill Bradley Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday's L.A. Times exposé on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story's publication, the Weekly has learned from well-informed sources. This knowledge came not only in advance of publication but also before anyone outside a close circle at the Times knew of the story's timing and particulars. (Anyone surprised) While the Times insists that its reporting uncovered the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Schwarzenegger, there can be no doubt that advance knowledge of the story was very helpful to Governor Gray Davis' efforts to retain his office in the recall election. Meanwhile, Sunday-night tracking polls seem to show the recall and Schwarzenegger running well ahead. Schwarzenegger strategists say their tracking poll shows the recall with a lead in the low double digits, and Schwarzenegger nearly 10 points ahead of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante on the replacement portion of the ballot. (Actually the lead INCREASED after the story broke) Top strategists for the governor were not available, and Davis spokesman Roger Salazar says he knows no Sunday-night polling numbers from the governor's campaign. (Still in denial) Back to the blockbuster hit on Schwarzenegger in Thursday's Times. According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper's internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative (A Standard Davis ploy, wait till the last minute to let loose allegations)
(Which means a Davis man was/is IN the building) Whether or not the Times received all or part of the story from pro-Davis sources — and the Times continues to vociferously insist that none of the first story, at least, did — the advance knowledge of the story's timing and particulars enabled Davis and the Democrats to design the closing burst of the anti-recall campaign, which we have seen unfold with an uncanny precision. (hmm all of the women work for Davis people or unions. What do you think?) I had been very impressed with the alacrity with which Davis and the Democrats seized on the Times story and swiftly pivoted into all-out attack mode. A flurry of press statements and highly coordinated events and advertising involving politicians across the state and in Washington, D.C., ensued. It was remarkably efficient. But if you know what is coming in the news flow and when it is coming, it is much easier to design the close of your campaign. Incidentally, the paper Monday backed off its previous contention that none of the women in subsequent stories came forward at the urging of Schwarzenegger's opponents in the wake of the Weekly's revelation that Jodie Evans, who pushed one of the women to come forward, is not merely the peace activist described by the Times but also a former close colleague of Governor Davis and longtime friend of chief Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland. (Translation: After caught in a lie they changed the subject) In another intriguing bit of Times reporting, Schwarzenegger's huge rally Sunday outside the state Capitol was not referenced until the 18th paragraph of Monday's story. The rally was twice as large as the 5,000 people reported by the Times. Of course, observers can vary in crowd estimates. But another element of the reportage was very strange. "Protesters nearly drowned out the early part of Schwarzenegger's nine-minute speech with a steady chorus of boos," the Times reported today. Viewing from the press riser with most of the rest of the press corps, I didn't hear the protesters. They certainly didn't drown out Schwarzenegger. I asked the question: What comes after sleazy? I asked this to a friend because the Davis camp went well beyond sleazy. The sad part if that the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and Sacramento Bee were willing to be a bitch for the Democratic party. Which kinds of leaves a BIG whole for those of us who want/need a newspaper that speaks the truth. I will not defend Arnolds behavior but the most serious charges come from people that have VERY close ties with the Davis administration. Fortunately the Internet sleuths found out the deception and now the local news had to run the story. One of my female co-workers attended the rally on Sunday and she could not hear any protestors. Also the local news showed security escorted two (2) Code Pink idiots out of the rally. Too bad they didn't crack them with a baton and knock some sense into them. I am voting late today with my wife, we like to vote on the day and with our neighbors. I predict a HUGE Yes vote for the recall and Arnold will replace Davis with more than 50% of the vote. | |
| Posted by:Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) |
| #14 Any logical thinking person knows what the L.A. Slimes & the Californian dem-o-rats are trying to pull here. There's such a thing as a statute of limitations. Plus, if theses girls were so damn offended why didn't they sue the multi-million dollar actor years ago?? Shit, for a hundred thousand he can slap my ass to.....Stupid wenches. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-7 10:15:12 PM |
| #13 Just tuned in Brit Hume. His panel had Arnold's postive/negative rating among women as 40% to 49% which is better than Bustamante. The analysts were saying that the late smear seemed to have moved McClintock voters into Arnold's camp. Evidently, everyone expected Davis to go negative in the last minute and when the sexual harassment story broke everone assumed that David was responsible. Even those who beleive that Arnold is a RINO (Republican in Name Only,) are willing to except a liberal groper to put the wooden stake through Dais' heart. Better empty a clip of silver slugs into his ass just to be sure. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-7 7:30:43 PM |
| #12 Frank, I am on my way to vote for Arnold. As for the state house opposing him I have three words: Line Item Veto. Ronnie used it often. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-10-7 7:07:00 PM |
| #11 JFM - quite so. I voted for Arnold today, and if he fails - I'll take the abuse, but we need a shakeup in CA and he's strong-willed and smart enough to do it. I expect the Dem legislature (both houses) to oppose him at every oportunity until he takes it over their heads to the people...watch next year |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-7 6:15:17 PM |
| #10 Mr Mercutio I saw the same line when Reagan was elected "if at least it had been a good actor like Brando" and I think it is quite simply despicable. The qualities of actor of Reagan or Schwarzenger are about as relevant than their talent at making apple pie. And for Nancy being the real president I suggest you read less novels. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-10-7 4:32:10 PM |
| #9 What IS this fascination California has with electing bad actors to the governors' office? At least Ronnie had Nancy to run the state (and country for him). I'm less enthused about Arnie's squeeze doing the job, since it's unlikely A.S. (his middle initial doesn't happen to be "S", does it) has a clue. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2003-10-7 3:53:59 PM |
| #8 I don't know if Arnold is qualified to run California, but it's pretty obvious The Gray Davis isn't. If I lived there, I wouldn't have to spend much time deciding how to vote. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-10-7 3:16:32 PM |
| #7 I think the sleazier thing was the Nazi smear. The Jews in Arnold's home town have a different story to tell about him. Frankly I don't know much about Davis except that he bores me to death when I see him on television. As for the groping: Jeez, this guy worked with hundreds or thousands of women. I couldn't recall whether I accidently touched a female bum 20 years ago or not so I would not deny it just in case... That's just pathetic. I wouldn't know whether Arnold is qualified for that job. But if I get my Californian friends right, he just can't be worse than Davis. So good luck to him! And it was Ronald Reagan who found out the only way how to defeat the Soviets without making the Earth a place for cockroaches only... Who knows what Arnie might come up with? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-10-7 3:14:24 PM |
| #6 here it is: KFI's John and Ken were all over it yesterday before 6PM, but the LA Times printed it as fact that she and Allred were the 16th gropee |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-7 12:25:08 PM |
| #5 Yank and Crazy, the rap sheet is true for the latest 'tear jerker' to come forward. Also the accusation of 'unwanted' touching seem to fall apart after a make-up artist tells the story of who was teasing who. To recap the three people that are identified: One works for the CAL DNC chairman, one works for a Union, and the third is a liar and a criminal with a LONG rap sheet (including prostituion). Drudge had a link to the rap sheet yesterday but it's gone today. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-10-7 12:23:42 PM |
| #4 It was bad enough when the waitresses at Hooters started suing for sexual harassment. When the prostitutes start outting the gropers, where will we be? |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-7 12:23:17 PM |
| #3 Truth is most of the allegations were made by Premier Magazine two years ago when Arnold was considering a run for Governor. Davis leaked the info to the magazine back then to get Arnold out of the race. Even if the Dems had nothing to do with the latest leak they are still semi-responsible. Unfortunately for them the fact that the people of California had 2 years to digest the groping charges pretty much nullifies their affect on the decision making process when the charges reappear. The pro-Arnold polls went up because people saw the sleazy tactic for what it was. I hadn't heard the prostitution line, sounds unlikely. One of the two was married to Arnold's major competitor in the Mr. Olympia competitions back in the late 70s. This is the same competitor that came out with racist misquotes about Arnold a month ago. She was in the gym wearing a loose shirt and no bra so they could see her breast through the armhole. Arnold reached in and copped a feel in front of the other body builders. If he groped her it was to psyche his competitor out, not that that makes it right, but it makes it very possible since Arnold was known for defeating his competition mentally before the matches. That's why Arnold apologized for some of the things that sounded like him. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-10-7 12:14:20 PM |
| #2 I heard last night that another 'two' allegations were leveled at Arnold by LA Times and Arnold's team revealed that one of them had a long history of arrests for prositution. Is this true? If it is it leads me to beleave that Gray's team is hiring hookers to make these claims...... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-7 11:52:17 AM |
| #1 The LA Times will say that they were confirming details up to the last minute, but went to press finally, because if Arnold had lost their investment would in creating the story would have had no value after the election. Looks like a case where Arnold should sue for libel and use the right of discovery in the civil suit to find E-mail that implicate that the paper held the story for political reasons. This discovery would have no bearing on the suit but could lead to some interesting "blood in the water" activity. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-7 11:51:11 AM |