Nauseating

California Governor Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis spoke to the faithful yesterday, taking the offensive against his recall.

sacbee.com -- Politics -- Davis stands by his record

Gov. Gray Davis, opening a new phase in his campaign to hold on to his job, took his case directly to the voters Tuesday -- accepting criticism for acting too slowly on the energy crisis but not offering any apologies.

He accepts criticism but doesn't take responsibility, or even admit he might have just goofed, even if just a little. Oh, wait, that's not how The Faithful see it:

Dan Terry, president of the California Professional Firefighters Association, disagreed, saying Davis had taken responsibility for the energy crisis and "laid responsibility where it belonged."

"I am proud of my governor," he said. "He did a good job."

Yes, yes, a great job of doing a $50 billion shift in California's fortune, from plus $12 billion to minus $38 billion all because of a one year spike in state income.

Also, I'm confused. If he took responsibility, then how can he lay responsibility "where it belonged"? If he accepts responsibility, it's his. But, no, he didn't accept a damn thing. He just shifted it to someone else. He's a victim, damnit, wahhhhh. Such a lovely picture of a governor.

Of course, the nature of this audience tells you who the intended audience really was:

Arriving onstage with his wife, Sharon, at his side, he was welcomed with a standing ovation from an invited crowd of about 300 union activists and supporters. They frequently interrupted his address at UCLA's Ackerman Hall with cheers, chants, boos and standing ovations.

Or, as Dan Waters (also in the Sac Bee) puts it:

Davis' 20-minute speech to a carefully selected audience of enthusiastic supporters at UCLA was clearly aimed at arresting his popularity plunge -- one that threatens to make him irrelevant as the recall becomes an assumption, and the contest among Bustamante, Schwarzenegger and others takes center stage. And Davis' chief target was Democratic voters, many of whom are ready to jettison him, especially because they have another Democrat in Bustamante waiting in the wings.

Waters also zeroes in on the, er, alterations Davis loves to make to history:

The governor described the 2001 energy crisis, which saw Californians experience power blackouts and soaring utility bills, as something foisted on the state by Enron and other greedy energy suppliers. However, Davis glossed over and distorted his refusal early in the crisis to allow utilities to sign long-term supply contracts that would have protected them and their customers from soaring spot market power prices. That refusal has been singled out by even the most objective critics as Davis' chief failure -- one magnified a half-year later when he sought long-term contracts at much-higher prices.

Davis cryptic version: "I refused to give in to pressure to raise rates astronomically." Reality: Rates would have risen only slightly had Davis acted earlier, and they did rise astronomically to pay for the much more expensive contracts his administration signed later.

And as for that small problem of the deficit, I again defer to Mr. Waters for the clearest and truest explanation:

The record differs markedly from Davis' self-serving version. When the state experienced a $12 billion windfall in 2000, Davis publicly declared that he would stoutly resist pressure from either party to spend it because it likely would be a one-time phenomenon, stemming from a flurry of stock market activity in the volatile high-tech industry. If the money were to be committed to ongoing spending or permanent tax cuts, Davis said then, the state could face massive deficits as future revenues returned to normal levels.

In fact, however, Davis and lawmakers quickly agreed to spend about $8 billion of the windfall on ongoing programs -- tax cuts, education and health care primarily -- and when revenues did return to normal, the state had an $8 billion "structural deficit" that was papered over with bookkeeping gimmicks and loans in the ensuing three years. It leaves the state with an immense ongoing deficit and equally massive debts.

So, Davis said one thing then ran as quickly as possible to do the opposite.

A Constitutional Lesson

Reuters "reports"" that Fox News is suing Al Franken. At issue is Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" on the book's cover. Fox News uses that as a tag phrase for their news broadcasts. Says Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Franken's publisher:

In trying to suppress Al Franken's book the News Corp is undermining First Amendment principles that protect all media by guaranteeing a free, open and vigorous debate of public issues.

First Amendment...?

The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." Doesn't say a thing about a private business suing another for copyright infringement. Thus, Ms Johnson's statement is the usual rhetoric, an effort to wrap oneself in the safety and protection of the Constitution when it doesn't even apply.

Unless they want it to, in which case it would seem to me it could undermine the very notion of copyright protection. Is Fox's claim legit? I don't know. Seems like a debateable question, which means it goes to court. But no way is this a First Amendment issue. None at all.

Enterprise

In case no one has mentioned it, twenty-six years ago the Enterprise flew for the first time. While it would never fly in space, this space shuttle would prove that the bricks could indeed "glide" to a safe landing. It also verified that the shuttle could be, er, shuttled to and fro on the back of a modified 747. I believe the Enterprise, OV-101, now is on display at the Smithsonian.

Democrat Love

Gads, love these people:

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS.

No further comment needed.

Hot, so hot!

They are melting in Europe, with temperatures like....

A weather station in southern Paris reported Monday it had recorded 25.5 degrees Celsius (77.9 Fahrenheit) overnight, the highest nighttime low since France started keeping records in 1873. The previous record was 24C (75.2F), recorded on the night of July 4, 1976.

Less than 80 degrees (American) overnight, and they're complaining? Sheesh. Poor people.

Actually, I should be more sympathetic. As a San Franciscan born and raised, I'm used to a temperature that could be called moderate. I mean, you got up in the morning and the temperature was between 50-55. By evening, it was 50-55. Sometime during the night it dropped to 50-55. That's winter. Summer rises to 55-60. Oh, yes, there are variations; this weekend it was more in the 70's. Nonetheless, over the course of a year the temperature sits in a ten degree range.

Now I live in the Sacramento valley, and temperature can swing 30+ degrees over the course of a day. It'll be in the mid-90's today. July had a record number of 100+ days. Ugh. Hate it. Been here some 17 years and have yet to adapt. I hate summer.

So, sorry, Europe.

An Insult

The Guv says....

Davis said he has "gotten the message. I understand a lot of people signed a recall." But he also called it "an insult to the 8 million people who went to the polls last November and decided I should be governor."

No, what's insulting was his concealing the true and coming size of the state deficit in the days leading up to that election. What's insulting is how he claims he isn't giving state employees a raise, while at the same time negotiating raises. How do you do that? Last year, rather than give state employees a 5% raise, he agree that the state would pay 100% of the contribution to an individual's retirement account, essentially 5% raise. This year, that was going to end; employees would resume paying into their retirement account. As compensation, they would get a 5% raise.

Naturally, he doesn't want to do that now, given the deficit he managed to run up. So here's the deal: Employees waive that 5% raise. In exchange, they get an extra one "personal day" off each month. Surprise! That's effectively a 5% raise! What happens is that the employee can take the day off or they can allow it to accrue. Forever, or until they retire, whichever comes first. This has been done before. The reviled governor Pete Wilson (well, reviled by the wildly liberal state unions, that is) did the same, circa his first year in office. Surprise, that saved the state a prompt billion or so. Bigger surprise, it's current cost to the state is several billion dollars...and growing! Lo and behold, Gray wants to do the same because it looks great on paper and in the headlines. Please, though, no one look behind the curtain.

Damn, this guy sucks.

Happy Birthday, Katie!

No, no, not Couric. This Katie is my daughter. Today is her 18th birthday. I can't wish her happy birthday in person because she's in US Air Force basic training. She's more than a few miles away, very much out of communication with me. With luck, I'll get a letter.

So there's my daughter in military service. And there's my old chief's oldest son in the Navy, currently somewhere in California. And there's his younger son, somewhere near the DMZ in Korea. And on and on. I seem to know an amazing number of people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for their country.

Amen.

Love and kisses, Katie!

Somebody save us...

...from Gray Davis!

The recall is a go. The California Supreme Court has rejected all challenges, including silly ones from The Guv himself, and October 7 remains D-Day for the Davis administration. One of Davis's objections was that he wasn't allowed to be on the list of candidates. As you may know, the recall ballot will have two questions. #1) Should Davis be recalled? #2) If so, who do you want to replace him? The list for #2 is unoffically huge (300+?). I say unofficially because that's the number of applications that have been requested and/or distributed. The final tally of those who have actually filed won't be known until after 5pm Saturday.

And while many see this as evidence of California insanity, Daniel Henninger says it well:

So how is it that Californians are ridiculed as zany for trying to recall a politician-governor who has wasted not only the public trust conferred by election but $38.2 billion of their money, the state's current deficit?

Amen.

Now Arnie is in the race, and the smear begins. First was the perky Katie Couric, quoted via Rush Limbaugh (no link to his specific musings, because I don't know how "permanent" his links are), wherein she immediately implies Arnie is a Nazi. Now today comes this idiot...

Here's a question Jay Leno forgot to ask Arnold Schwarzenegger when he announced his candidacy for governor of California on last night's "Tonight Show": "Will you renounce your support for Kurt Waldheim?"

Puh-leez! Spare me!

Guilt by association: Isn't this the exact same tactic that liberals complain about and label "McCarthyism"? Against McCarthy they railed that membership in the Communist Party didn't mean they were a spy. (Well, many were, but that little fact is, er, ignored.) Now Arnie likes a guy who was a Nazi, and (gasp!) his father was a member of the Nazi Party (during WW2, in Germany/Austria, at a time when pretty much everyone was, or they were in a concentration camp). No, let us never discuss the idea(s) a person might have. So much easier to slander him instead.

From the same opinion/slam piece:

Rather than confront his Waldheim problem head-on, Schwarzenegger has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel (where he met with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which in 1997 bestowed on him its National Leadership Award. "He wants no truck with … Waldheim," the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier told the Jerusalem Post. "He probably did not have any clue as to the seriousness of the allegations against Waldheim at that time [i.e., 1986]. To suggest that Arnold's an anti-Semite is preposterous. He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."

(Emphasis mine.)

And despite all that, the piece wraps up in the very next paragraph with....

Clearly, though, that won’t be enough. If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California.

By God, just because a rabbi states the matter correctly, absolving Arnie of any implied guilt, doesn't mean the liberals will. They can't! Damnit, he's a Republican!

The only thing clear is that hacks like Noah (who?) and Couric (highest paid talking head on TV?) will do whatever is necessary to stop any Republican from gaining any public office. In this, they are the perfect reps for Gray Davis, who can never campaign on his record (which sucks, remember the $50+ billion swing in California state economics, from a $12 billion surplus to a $38+ billion deficit), so constantly goes on the smear offensive.

And they wonder why we want him (and them) to go. Don't go away upset, don't go away mad, just go away.