|
|
|
|
How, exactly, did a second-rate actor earn front-runner status? As a member of the media, I have met the enemy and it is us. We reporters have let the supposed next governor surge to the lead—which we back up with our own duplicitous polls, of course—without answering a single question about how he would lead the world’s fifth-largest economy. What we have asked him, of course, is whether he tried to grab a woman’s breast in the 1980s (what single man didn’t?). And we think we have done our jobs when we uncover an old interview in which the candidate described the joy of having sex with two women at the same time (again, what single man...oh, never mind) or that he once mentioned the word “Hitler” in the same sentence as “admire.” Where were the reporters who could point out that a man can not claim to be an environmentalist yet drive a Hummer? Where were the columnists who should have been pointing out that a man can’t say he’s pro-immigration but want to deprive some immigrants of benefits? Where were the writers reminding us that the bloated budgets of most action movies are hardly a model of fiscal restraint? Alas, where was the coverage? | |
|
Instead, we in the media let this recall train leave the station. We blamed Davis for California’s energy “crisis” two years ago (which, would you believe it?, was actually a result of Enron and other energy traders cooking the books). As apt as Davis’s first name actually is, he is not the kind of elected official for whom the recall law was written. He has not violated the public trust. He has not committed treason. He has not exhibited immoral or criminal behavior. You may think he’s doing a bad job as governor, but the standard for firing an elected official should be much higher than merely disagreeing with his approach to governing and having a right-wing Congressman in your state who has several million dollars with which to pay the so-called “volunteers” to man the recall barricades. Where was the coverage that should have called the effort what it is: a coup?
Instead, we in the media dubbed the entire proceedings a “circus”—even as we provided all three rings. Yes, it’s true that in an election where the only qualification was $3,500 and 65 signatures—and one that is taking place in California—there are going to be a lot of weirdos.
Flipping through the official recall election voters guide (find it at http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/english.pdf), I was, in fact, amazed at how few of these truly delusional people (“I love ferrets! Make me governor!”) bothered to even disguise their lunacy.
In no specific order, here were my favorites:
 David Ronald Sams, who describes himself as “the $100,000,000 Man with a Plan” (unless the “plan” is to give those hundred large to the state treasury, I’m not interested). Sams says that his marketing experience turning “Wheel of Fortune,” “Jeopardy!” and Oprah Winfrey into “household names” makes him worthy of being governor. His solution to the budget crisis? Selling the naming rights to freeways. Next!
D. (Logan Darrow) Clements, who said he would model the state government on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which he calls “America’s second-most influential book.” Here’s a guy I wouldn’t even elect as part-time librarian and he’s running for governor? Next!
Warren Farrell, a self-styled men’s rights advocate who is running solely to plug his books and his theory that “men now earn less money than women for the same work.” Well, if men are truly from Mars, I’d say Farrell has just found the only jurisdiction that would elect him to anything. Next!
Bill Prady, who produces sit-coms where “no matter what problems arise or conflicts exist, people work together to overcome any obstacle and, maybe learn a little something. Wouldn’t you like California to be a place like that?” (Not if it means we all have to live in Mike Brady’s house or worry about never coming back whenever we go on a three-hour booze cruise.) Next!
Trek Thunder Kelly, who wrote, “Please vote for me, thus breaking the Seventh Seal and incurring Armageddon.” His promise? I don’t care who you have sex with.” (I care—and I want details now!) Next!
Sir Knight Alexander-St. James Andrew Railey-Cisco, whose name seems to violate not only accepted grammatical rules, but also British royalty codes. His opening statement? “Once an Aspirant Catholic Priest, I support life from conception to the grave.” (What? He doesn’t support life after the grave?) Next!
Jerry Kunzman, whom I couldn’t even support, despite our nearly identical surnames. He vowed that he has “some solutions” to California’s problems, but “I don’t have all the answers. That’s what advisors [sic] are for.” Next!
Lorraine (Abner Zurd) Fontanes, who claims that her (his?) “skills as a filmmaker” will “return common sense to California.” Films? What, you haven’t heard of “29 Handjobs” or “Masterpenis Theater”? These are the classic short films that are on Fontanes’ website. (Clearly, if Gray Davis had made edgier films, instead of sequels to his one hit, “How Enron, Not Gray Davis, Caused California’s Rolling Blackouts,” this recall thing never would’ve happened.)
It’s impossible not to have a little fun with this recall election. But that doesn’t forgive the media for missing one major point: Not everyone running for governor in California is a crank. Flipping through the voters guide, I could not help but be struck by how many candidates are not only concerned about their state, but actually have real visions about how it should be governed.
A used-car dealer named Mike McCarthy, for example, wrote of being responsible to the people, supporting small businesses and families, and making government more efficient. Badi Badiozamani spoke of rational development in a state with rampant overpopulation. Ivan Hall has championed solar power with a plan that could lead America to less reliance on foreign oil. (Too bad Hall makes his living manufacturing dentures. Once the media learned that, he was sunk.)
It sounds like a hokey Jimmy Stewart film—”Mr. Smith Goes to Sacramento,” perhaps?—with one catch: All of these would-be committed public servants didn’t need the fluke of a recall election to something good for society: there are any number of hospitals at which they could volunteer, blind people to whom they could read, entry-level offices—like district leader or school board member—for which they could have run. Why do so many people feel it’s their right to run for governor?
When I asked one of the most-serious of the “fringe candidates,” he nearly spit in my face. “A City Council position wouldn’t cut it for me,” Badiozamani, a prominent San Diego businessman, told me. “I’m thinking globally here. I’m 56. I don’t have time to go through the ranks. Besides, I am offering my life, my services here.”
Like Badiozamani, Hall said the recall election was actually the only way for a newcomer without money to break into politics. “In Redding, population 80,000, the last City Council winner spent $30,000 on his campaign,” he said. “I don’t have that. There’s no free speech. It’s all paid speech! This was the only way to be heard, even a little. Heck, before this election, I couldn’t even get a letter to the editor published in Newsweek. Now I’m being covered by it.”
But Hall admitted that the entire election has been tainted by celebrity—both Schwarzenegger’s and the minor candidates’ quest for some. “This isn’t a campaign for governor, it’s an audition. Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on Leno! This thing has been so superficial. But any one of us—OK, most of us—could be governor. I put my pants on the same way as Gray Davis does.”
Hopefully, nicer pants.
Gersh Kuntzman is also Brooklyn bureau chief for The New York Post. His website is at http://www.gersh.tv
|
|
