Tina Brown: The Dems want a War Admiral...

Arnold's win in California has unsettled political consultants everywhere. It's forced them to rethink the baggage issue. Perhaps baggage is good. Perhaps in the post-embarrassment era it's actually an asset in American public life to have survived a protracted period of hideous and shaming revelations about your private life, and still be standing after a tidal wave of trash has rolled over your head. It worked for Bill Clinton -- he's never been bigger. It works for Hillary -- she's never been better. Now look at Arnold. When it came to the vote, who did California want? The Masher or the Mushmouth? The guy who copped the feel or the guy who blew the deal?
...
New York's "progressive" Democratic power players are getting frantic. Until a few months ago they were still numb from the one-two punch of 2000 and 9/11. Bush's decline in the polls jerked them awake. Their loathing of Bush has risen to such a crescendo they will take any candidate who looks like a winner. A lot of them are excited by Dean, but they're ready to ditch him the minute he looks like a loser. They don't want to dick around with noble lost causes. They don't have time for self-appointed Seabiscuits. They want a War Admiral -- and they trudge from chic little soirees for Wes Clark to gilded breakfasts for John Kerry hoping to find one.
...
One recurring theme was the longing for a rapid-response war room to beat off Republican "disinformation." When Rush Limbaugh's OxyContin habit hit the airwaves, for instance, Democrats lacked what Republicans would have had in their shoes: a ready-to-go bullet-point list of all the times Rush had mouthed off about how drugs are all the fault of permissive liberals. "I'm happy to give money to that!" shouted a theater producer.
...
Al Franken has become the Democrats' messiah. His well-publicized row with Fox's bloodhound Bill O'Reilly -- as much as anything to do with Iraq -- was the magic wand that broke the Republican spell and turned Roger Ailes back into a frog. Any Manhattan dinner party you show up at these days feels like a Franken publishing party, with a pile of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" sitting on the hall table as a shiny guest giveaway. Franken was the star -- greeted with shrieks and yodels of delight -- who followed Al Sharpton's Little Richard routine at the DNC dinner at the New York Sheraton after the Pace University debate.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/brown/2003/10/09/rudy/

Sorry, from under which rock did she come?

just another rightwing lying lier.Back under your rock,scumbag.

If California had elected McClintock then I would worry. But look at the facts: Californians are mad; bad economy, influx of illegals straining the resources, job losses. Davis sealed his fate when he gave illegals drivers licenses, the public HATED that. The exit polls showed that only 13% of the voters thought the car tax was important.

Groper is a Democrat in repuke wrapping. This election bodes very ill for shrub in '04. I am not at all worried.

BTW George Will agrees with me, and he is worried!

The critics were yelling about the lack of security, that the ID would be worthless, yada, yada, yada. Well I just renewed my license and part of the process is THUMBPRINTING.

So the choice is unknown people driving without a license and no real way to identify them OR get them into the system including readily identifiable thumbprint even if the name they give is not them.

I think B is a much better choice.

saw the DL thing for what it was: blantant pandering to a group that Davis had to have to win. He had TWICE vetoed the bill and then signs it just weeks before an election that he was predicted to lose. People aren't stupid.

And in any states other than CA, NY, or MA, Arnold would be a Democrat. He is more liberal than the Democratic Gov of my state, and more liberal than many Democrats who live between the moutain ranges of the country's coasts.

I think it was more along the lines of extra votes were an offshoot of the legislation.

Look at it this way;
Why didn't he use this "pandering" in 2002? that was a very tight race right up until the end. If he didn't pander then, when would he? There were no more elections available too him to pander to at least as far as he knew at the time. Why save what is purported to be a move for certain votes for no reason?

Also as you report, he vetoed twice before, I can't find the link but there were some changes in this version because of prior vetoes that he wanted. There were some that he wanted that he didn't get but in the end he got a better bill. The big anti-license voice was about the security, but as I discovered in my renewal, I think the reality of the situation made that moot.

Latly, the "DL thing" was hugely UNPOPULAR with the white males that vote(generalization for dramatization purposes only) so any thought that "pandering for votes from latinos that vote 60% dem that angers an even larger voting bloc that votes much less dem" seems like a net loser for Davis, which leads me to believe he was actually just doing his job, and got hell for it.

fob