We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons


California is Florida Redux
by Doug Schmitz
17 September 2003Gray Davis

The three judges who decided they would prefer a spring recall election in California are--surprise!--Carter and Clinton appointees.

I’m not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on.
I’ll do anything to win.

--Al Gore, quoted in Bill Sammon's At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election

In a desperate eleventh-hour skirmish to keep his fading job, California Governor Gray Davis has just pulled one last trick out of his hat: the deliberate political hijacking of the California recall that suspiciously mirrors Al Gore’s attempted legislative larceny of the 2000 presidential election.  But, not surprisingly, Davis’ leftist allies in the mainstream media have chosen to ignore the parallels.

With all the pathetically political pandering Davis has done over the last few weeks, at least someone in the mainstream media should have sat up and taken notice.  But since his self-appointed political advisor, ex-president Bill Clinton, was probably behind this latest move to temporarily stop the recall, Davis also knows his media leftists won’t likely be calling him on the carpet concerning his latest frantic stunt.

After all, Davis just signed a bill to flood his self-made rogue state with even more illegal aliens by allowing them driver’s licenses (as an obvious political ploy to gets votes, as well as provide an open door to potential terrorist suspects).  Davis, like Gore, has now turned to prominently unelected liberal judges to help him rewrite the rule of law.

Appointed by two Democrat administrations, the three liberal judges who ruled on yesterday’s case in question are Judge Harry Pregerson (chosen by former President Jimmy Carter) and Judges Sidney Thomas and Richard A. Paez (chosen by Clinton).

Dave Gilliard, a political strategist for Recall California, said of the radical ruling:
“The 9th Circuit is the least respected and most overturned appeals court in the nation. These are renegade liberal judges who time and time again seek to make their own law, rather than follow law.” 

The same leftist California court that declared the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional has proved its own partisan allegiance to Davis as the Florida judges did with Gore. 

This only further validates the fact that what liberals cannot accomplish at the ballot box they will try to enforce through the courts.

What Gore actually did in 2000 (for example, by disenfranchising military absentees voters and enforcing recounts in mainly Democratic counties in order to try to steal the election away from President Bush) was open up a Pandora’s Box for the Left to do the same thing for Davis.  Now it’s a box that may never be closed, if liberals have their way.

Once again, they have stormed the liberal magistrate because they know, like Gore did, that the outcome of the election wouldn’t be in their favor.  But Davis and his liberal lynch mob also know they always have the undeniable cooperation of the leftist press.

In fact, Rush Limbaugh said the political partisan ballot counters (and the liberal media) did all they could to count votes that Gore didn’t deserve.  This also included left-leaning newspapers, which counted the votes several times even after Bush legitimately won.

What’s also suspect is the ACLU’s role in this decision, especially since this Democrat-controlled group only crusades for purely leftist causes.  Moreover, this further begs the question: In this Florida 2000 redux, why are Davis and the ACLU only now questioning the validity of the same ballot boxes that were used to get Davis re-elected last fall? 

Davis is also accusing California’s now-supposedly flawed voting system of not being able to accurately count minority votes, especially since Davis appeared with Bill Clinton to do their usual race-baiting at a predominantly African-American church. 

But the equally important point is that these votes counted when these same machines were used to get him back into office last fall.  So, all of a sudden, because Davis knows his days are numbered, these same machines are now deemed invalid? 

The Left didn’t complain about the voting machines when it looked like Gore was winning, as this leftist writer of this New York Times’ Sept. 16 editorial, denied:

It is a serious matter for a court to stop an election, but the federal appeals court that put off California’s gubernatorial recall did the right thing.  If the vote goes ahead as scheduled, using defective punch-card ballots in some areas, tens of thousands of votes will not be counted.  Routinely throwing out votes is unacceptable, as is discriminating based on where voters live.  California should replace its punch cards and hold the recall next March.

But while the Times complained that “routinely throwing out votes is unacceptable, as is discriminating based on where voters live,” this is exactly what Florida’s liberal judges did when they had strategically chosen primarily Democratic counties for recounts, based solely on Gore’s fraught outcry.

As the Weekly Standard’s Bill Whalen correctly wondered regarding Davis’ latest political heist: “If punch cards were an acceptable form of voting in November 2002, why not October 2003?” 

Whalen’s question is important because if you follow the Left’s twisted logic in their latest effort to steal the recall, then Davis may not have been legitimately re-elected last fall.  Therefore, former Republican gubernatorial challenger Bill Simon would have a case, just like Florida’s politically motivated court collectively thought Gore had. 

Only with Gore, he and his corrupt lawyers used every opportunity to manipulate, bend and change election laws; on the other hand, Simon, in the recall saga, honorably bowed out without recourse--or revenge--like Gore unjustly launched against Bush in 2000. 

What’s more, Davis can no longer claim that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was working behind the scenes to bring him down--especially since a liberal court has momentarily decided in his favor.  Also, it comes as no surprise that, like Gore, Davis’ clearly false accusations against Republicans have gone completely unchallenged in the liberal media.

That said, like Gore, Davis had the opportunity to do the right thing and end the madness he created by gracefully bowing out at the request of the vast majority of the people.  Instead, Davis, like Gore, chose arrogance over honor, and corruption over character--with the full backing of the mainstream press.

In fact, the following examples show how the liberal media establishment have already sided with Davis and the rest of their fellow Democrats.
For example, New York Times "reporters" Charlie LeDuff and Nick Madigan, whose heavily-editorialized story screamed: "New Twist in Recall Brings Anger From Right,” wrote:

  • For a day at least, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals replaced Gov. Gray Davis as the Republican Party’s punching bag.
  • This afternoon, right-wing radio was cranked up, crackling with accusations of a coup, cronyism and crass political maneuvering… 
  • Even in the liberal precincts of San Francisco, the voice of the angry right was heard. The governorship, finally within the Republican grasp after five years in the wilderness, may have been yanked away.

Conspicuously placed on ABCNews.com, the Associated Press also showed its liberal bias when it hinted at the same old, tired questioning of Bush’s legitimate win: “If the high court does agree to hear the case, it would again be embroiled in another highly partisan political issue reminiscent of the 2000 election, in which the court declared Republican George Bush the winner.”

Contemporaneously, Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, who also towed the partisan party line of the rest of the liberal media, wrote, “Just last February, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a dissenter in the historic 2000 election case that handed victory to President Bush, told a law school audience in San Diego that Bush v. Gore was a “one of a kind case,” adding: “I doubt it will ever be cited as precedent by the court on anything.”

To his credit, although CBS News correspondent Steve Futterman provided a fairly balanced story when he particularly cited California’s liberal court as declaring the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional, he claimed, “voters reacted with mixed feelings about the decision.”  

But in the end, Futterman eventually fell short of presenting views opposing the ruling:

“I don’t like things when they are rushed.  It’s ridiculous, the wide field of candidates, the short election,” said Vana Meydag, 50, of Whittier.  “Maybe postponing is a good thing to give people time to reflect on what’s going on.”

Not surprisingly, CNN anchor Judy Woodruff parsed her words as well when drilling former Republican gubernatorial candidate Darrell Issa about the recall decision:

WOODRUFF: Darrell Issa is the man who is largely responsible for getting this recall effort on the ballot.  He initially was going to run ... and decided not to. Congressman, we just heard U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat who represents the Los Angeles area, say that what you did was a paid effort, that people didn't really know what they were signing--suggesting that perhaps it wasn't a legitimate petition.

ISSA: Well, Maxine’s self-serving statements are just that. First of all, the total number that came in was over 2.1 million signatures.  Once you get more than twice the amount required by law, in that case the election has been certified, you sort of quit counting.

Showing his partisanship, New York Daily News reporter Derek Rose also weighed in with this slanted gem:

“Yesterday’s ruling was attacked by Republicans and recall supporters--especially as the drive to oust Davis appears to be losing momentum.”

If Davis, by some miracle, actually wins, will Dan Rather go on David Letterman to call Davis “selected rather than elected,” as he erroneously did with Bush?  Not likely.

Rather’s partisan editorializing was exposed when he accused Katherine Harris of playing partisan politics by defending Bush.  Now, will Rather decide that the winner, if not Davis, was chosen as they “see it and decree it,” as Rather also did with Bush?  Of course not.

The main problem with the liberal media establishment has always been that they are so heavily entrenched in the Democratic Party that they cannot objectively and straightforwardly report the facts concerning their chosen party’s blatant canards.

For too long now, the Democrats have gotten free passes from the liberal media for being up to their same old political tricks.  But when they falsely accuse Republicans of the same shenanigans, the attack dogs in the partisan press are all over it.

This further begs the question: How much more proof does the liberal media establishment need that their liberal media bias most certainly does exist?

Thanks to the independent news and information sources of Fox News, WorldNetDaily, CNSNews.com, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge, the liberal media cannot get away with their blatant distortions of the truth that they use to further their leftist agendas.

As long as the leftists in the media continue letting Democrats get away with these politically motivated stunts like Davis just pulled, the general public--who continues to get their news dumbed down by these political press pundits, will continue embracing the liberal media lies as truth.

Like Gore, it’s become obvious that Davis will also do anything to win, which completely demolishes his “vast right-wing conspiracy” claim.

Doug Schmitz is a conse
rvative columnist who regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, BushCountry.org and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org.). © Doug Schmitz.  All Rights Reserved.

Email Doug Schmitz

Send this Article to a Friend