Choosing a Circuitous Path

“Schwarzenegger” is too long for a print newspaper to use in a headline in all but rare cases. Putting aside the fact that only Democratic Presidents were known by their initials in the last century, using “FDR” or “JFK” in a headline, as all newspapers in the land did, heightens familiarity and confidence in the person. These were not idle, random events. The Times has cooked up so many hit pieces during Mr. Schwarzenegger’s term that the sheer weight of them would have broken — and has broken — lesser politicians. Despite a vicious, sometimes-daily, three-year hate campaign against the governor of California, it appears that, Arnold, you will excuse the friendly expression, will solidly be returned to office seven weeks from Tuesday. Times editors have assigned a series of cheap-shot reporters to cover Mr. Schwarzenegger from the ground up, digging up any dirt they can find from any source, reputable or otherwise. Several times they have wounded him. But 99 percent of stories have affected him the way a pebble bounces off a man of steel.

Was It Planned This Way?

The governor’s re-election chances doubled on the day last June that the dreadful State Treasurer Phil Angelides defeated the smoother, smarter Steve Westly in the Democratic primary. The talk is that the Democratic Party kingmakers manipulated the outcome. By allowing Arnold to win in ’06, that will give a coming star, such as Mayor Villaraigosa, a clear stage on which to make his bid. If Mr. Westly had won, he realistically could have beaten Arnold. Naturally, he would seek re-election in ’10. This would leave Mayor Villaraigosa, or another more desirable personality, stewing in the wings. The book on Arnold’s opponent is succinct: Unpleasant person, largely empty mind, unimaginative, a rubber stamp for the kind of Democratic philosophy that voters routinely reject. Few people know him, many fewer like him. Take what happened last night at the Culver City Democratic Club meeting. In the kind of snub that has been occurring with increasing frequency, the chair of the County Democratic Party talked at length about Arnold, but refused to even mention the name of Arnold’s opponent. That is whatever the opposite of love is. Until the other day, Mr. Villaraigosa gave himself hernias this summer trying to avoid endorsing the wretched candidate.

Postscript

Nothing wrong, of course, with the Los Angeles Times disliking an officeholder, although the newspaper has tended to be irrational — in its news stories — loading most reports against Arnold, whether warranted or not. At the Times, reporter Joe Mathews has become the chief cheap-shot artist. For three years, Mr. Mathews, a proud liberal, has been mystified that Arnold was elected, and remains popular, as a Republican. How can this be? he keeps asking. Mr. Mathews has been tirelessly pursuing this theme throughout Arnold’s term. How can Arnold be so widely liked, even loved, when he is so different from other mainstream politicians? Sometimes he seems like a Democrat, sometimes a Republican. This drives the Times crazy. Mr. Mathews did his latest slimy Arnold-is-not-really-a-Republican hit piece in the Sept. 3 issue, tinged with Nazi/Austrian overtones. He intended to create the impression that Arnold has sinister roots, and the potential to dangerously derail any day. The story is groaning with innuendos. Mr. Mathews repeatedly suggests that Arnold has not yet drawn back the curtain on his full personality. He is mysteriously hiding some of his true motives. Arnold must be covering up, Mr. Mathews reasons, because he is so different from the rest. Time is on the Times’ side in their anti-Arnold war. Soon they may be given four fresh years to uncover even more harmless dirt about Arnold.