CalPolitics
So Cruz is a racist, Arnold once bragged about having group sex, and Gray is...well, Gray. It's great to see how the media is focusing on the important stuff instead of wasting their time on irrelevant matters such as investigating the candidates' solutions to the state's budget crisis. Perhaps it's best to completely pass over the question of how some dignity ever gets restored to California governance.

Bustamante's worst sin, as far as I can tell, is his utter mediocrity. Could the Democrats have two more dispiriting candidates than Cruz and Gray? That may be what makes Arnold attractive to lots of undecided voters. But it seems to me he suffers from the same problem that his Democratic opponents do - he doesn't really seem to stand for anything other than getting elected. It's possible he has some very definite positions, but we have no idea what they might be. And his handlers are working very hard at keeping him under wraps. This might be his best possible strategy. Current and former Texans of a certain age (like me) probably still remember how Clayton Williams lost a huge lead in the Texas Governor's race in 1990 by repeatedly sticking his foot in his mouth.

But comparisons to George W. Bush are probably are little more apt. Like GWB, we have a well-known candidate who's never held public office. He's backed by the best-connected insiders of his party, many of whom have extensive experience in politics. In particular, the folks advising Schwartzenegger are the same ones who were part of Pete Wilson's (the last Republican Governer of CA) administration. Like GWB, there have been charges that AS is simply a frontman for the decision-makers behind the scenes.

A big difference is that the Governor's duties in Texas are largely ceremonial. The Lieutenant Governor is responsible for the day-to-day business of the state. This is not the case in California, where the Governor has far more power and responsibility. GWB was very effective in advancing his agenda during his time as Governor, but it was Bob Bullock and then Rick Perry who ran the day-to-day show as Lt. Gov.

Schwarzenegger's claim is that specifics of his positions on the issues are not that important; bringing leadership to Sacramento is what's needed. This isn't really a bad argument; tough decisions need to be made by someone who's willing to stand up, carry them forward, and get the majority of state's lawmakers on board. But at this point, we have very little to help judge if Schwarzenegger is capable of providing that kind of leadership. A good start would be to demonstrate that's he's done his homework, and that he has some well-thought-out ideas and positions. Despite some test marketing to the far right, he's still largely a cipher, and his candidacy still looks to me more like a vanity project for his ego than a commitment to effectively governing California.

Update: I wrote this on Saturday and posted it without publishing (or so I thought). The reason I didn't publish it was because I thought it was poorly written and not very well informed - based on my emotional judgements of the candidates which have been formed without sufficiently educating myself. So this is a slight rewrite of the original post. It's a little better, but not much.

Society

Here's an interesting article on ESPN's hiring of Rush Limbaugh by Rogers Cadenhead. I felt motivated to write this comment:

“There's a simple cure for the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world:

By and large, ignore them. Don't buy their books, don't watch their shows. Don't waste energy debating their ridiculous positions. Doing so gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve.

Of course, they'll continue to appeal to their core constituencies. There'll always be plenty of money to be made pandering to people's worst impulses. But remember that this sort of thing thrives on controversy, especially the emotional, name-calling, mean-spirited kind. Denying them the privilege of being taken seriously averts this and eventually results in their being reduced to irrelevance.

Now, that doesn't mean we should let them get away with anything. The truly offensive things they say and do - Limbaugh's repugnant remarks about 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton and his frequent bouts of racism, Coulter's indefensible defense of Joe McCarthy and labeling of liberals as "traitors" - need to be held up as examples of why they shouldn't be taken seriously. But the important thing is to to debunk and skewer such abuse of the right of free speech, not to respond in kind or descend to personal attacks. Rogers' article is very much in this spirit. The real point, to me, is the cynicism of ABC/Disney in hiring Limbaugh in attempt to boost ratings by 1) bringing in his core audience and 2) hoping this ignites controversy. Don't let it; in this case, principled detachment is more effective than rabid condemnation. Turning off ESPN and ABC is an easy thing to do. If lots of people do it, it's more effective than any other method.

This same advice can be applied to the idiots on the far left. Feel free to substitute Michael Moore and Al Sharpton for Limbaugh and Colter. But the point remains: call them on their nonsense, ignore them otherwise, and eventually they'll fade away.”

Barbershop Banter
Speaking of Dean, my barber Jerome mentioned a great quote while he was cutting my hair this morning. Apparently, Dean has been pointing out that he balanced 12 budgets in a row and that George Bush has never balanced one.

I'll attest to that. I was living in Texas when GWB pissed away the surplus Ann Richards had made possible during her term as Governer. And that was during the boom, not after it. Sorry, “pissed” is the wrong verb. He gave away the surplus. To his rich buddies and corporate benefactors. Molly Ivins tells you all about it here.

As an aside, Texas was facing a budget crunch almost as scary as California's current one after the '84-85 bust. One of the key reasons the state didn't melt down financially was Ann Richard's remarkable performance as State Controller and then Treasurer. Her right-hand man and successor, John Sharp, was equally brilliant. Their efforts and a recovery of the Texas economy eventually led to a budgetary surplus. California could really use someone with Governer Ann's financial acumen and leadership right now. Not to mention her wit, charm, and gift for stinging rhetoric. Instead, we've got Gray, Cruz, and Arnold.

Jerome, incidentally, was into self-publishing long before the web made it easy for the rest of us. Is that cool, or what?

Better Late Than Never
Dave Winer is asking bloggers to link to this post on blogging tips for candidates. Now, it hardly matters whether I do or not, but it's eminently worthwhile reading. Key quote: “Earlier this year I wrote an op-ed piece for the Harvard Crimson explaining the next step in democracy, voters with their own publications, everyone with an op-ed page, citizens with weblogs, a revolution in politics...it's surprising when a vision comes true, no matter how strongly you felt it would.”. The Dean campaign weblog seems to be the one that's blazed the trail, along with Larry Lessig's guest spots by Dean and Kucinich. But no one's really harnessed the medium yet. What's going to happen when someone does?

More Bernard Lewis
“Some features of classical Islamic civilization, such as tolerance, social mobility, and respect for law, are distinctly favorable to democratic development...Socially, Islam has always been democratic, or rather, egalitarian, rejecting both the caste system of India and the aristocratic privilege of Europe...[There remains] the political difficulty - the total absence of any conception or experience of representative or limited government of any kind. It is this, no doubt, that underlies the theory that democracy cannot work in Islamic lands. That there is a predisposition to autocratic government among Muslim peoples is clear enough; that there is an inherent incapacity for any other has yet to be proven.”

Books
I've been reading Bernard Lewis's The Shaping of the Modern Middle East. Here's an interesting quote:

“Of all the great movements that have shaken the Middle East during the last century and a half, the Islamic movements alone are authentically Middle Eastern in inspiration...the religious ideologies alone sprang from the native soil and expressed the passions of the submerged masses of the population. Time and again, the fundamentalists have shown, against all their competitors, that theirs are the most effective slogans and symbols, theirs the most intelligible and appealing discourse...the religious movements can still release direct immensely powerful pent-up emotions and give expression to deeply held aspirations. Aspirations are not programs, and the fundamentalists in office have so far shown themselves no better equipped than their predecessors either to solve the problems of their societies or to resist the temptations of power. But although these movements have so far been defeated or deflected, they have not yet spoken their last word.”