There’s been some controversy swirling around my dismissing of the grope-usations leveled against California’s new Governor. In fact, at least one devoted reader has “lost some respect” for me. That ’s both good and bad - hell, at least it tells me that one person had some respect for me.
But lemme see if I can elaborate on how I feel (and felt) about the Case of the Groping Terminator.
I think that anyone who has a history of repeated sexual harassment is absolutely unqualified to hold office. In fact, such people shouldn’t be put in positions of power at all. I don’t think the issue is a joke or inconsequential, even though I may make inconsequential jokes about it.
But.
Remember Bill Clinton? Remember “Troopergate” and Paula Jones and etc.? Remember how accusations popped up right before Election Day, before there was any time to deal with ‘em? Before anyone could find out who was saying what and being paid by whom?
That was wrong.
I don’t think Arnold’s innocent, but I don’t trust the operatives of either political party. Quite possibly the women who emerged in the past week to level charges at Arnold were telling the truth, but what if they weren’t? What if at least some of it was a new version of the now-thoroughly-discredited Troopergate? Is that inconceivable?
Nah. It could happen. It does happen. To sit silently on a sexual harassment charge for years or even decades, only to break it out the week of the election, when there’s no time for investigation… well, that might seem like a good idea from the victim’s point of view, but it isn’t. Like it or not, the charge becomes an unfair political weapon, and the victims themselves become tools of a political smear campaign. I’m not saying these allegations need to be proven in court, but if we let our votes be changed by sudden, last-minute, unexamined accusations, if we let them matter, then we’re not very good voters. And we’re inviting more of the same for the foreseeable future.
So that was my point. I thought there were a lot of good reasons to vote against the Augmented Austrian, but that wasn’t one of ‘em by my lights. That’s my opinion, and I simply don’t think that makes me insensitive to victims of sexual harassment. [Though of course, not thinking that one is insensitive fits pretty nicely into the definition of “insensitive,” doesn’t it? There’s the rub. But a completely consensual rub, mind you.]
There’ll be time enough to take these cases right at Arnold, even though he’s the new Governor. He ought to answer each and every one of the allegations, and he should be compelled to in court if necessary. That’ll make for some pretty compelling television, actually.
So here I am, defending the newly elected, thoroughly unqualified Governor of California, a man who was swept in on a too-short campaign brought on by a misappropriated loophole in an abhorrent political power-grab…
… excuse me, I have to go take a shower.





20 comments
Ken
October 8, 2003 at 5:06 pm
1Adam,
The thing you’ve left out is that the women in this case didn’t “come forward.” They were sought out by the LAT, which was actually trying to do a respectable job of researching an issue that had been floating around in tabloid-land for a long time.
The timing had to do with the short campaign vs. the amount of time it took to do the research correctly. Would it have been better to have hold onto this info until after the election?
I agree with your basic point, however, that we have to be careful not to tar Arnold with the same brush used on Clinton. He deserves to be treated fairly. But the voters need to know about this information, provided that it is responsibly researched and presented.
Not that anyone care about it. I guess we’ve all got a license to grope now.
Eva
October 8, 2003 at 5:26 pm
2Well Adam,
That was a much better explanation than Arnold gave for his actions. At least you didn’t say that you were in the rowdy blog world and thought you were being playful, but now you know that what you wrote was wrong.
I do agree with your basic premise. All of the media should have been a lot harder on him from the very beginning.
On the other side, as a good California liberal I think the rest of the country does not understand what a schmuck Gray Davis is. He makes Al Gore look like a champion of the people. I voted against the recall, but maybe in the end it will be a wake up call to the California democratic party. (and to the national DLC as well.) But I digress……
Adam, I am sure you are happy to know you are back on my A list.
wendell
October 8, 2003 at 6:03 pm
3Adam, there are so many people out here in Californium taking long cold showers after this election/rejection/erection/infection, that I suspect some company in Texas is going to see the opportunity and corner the tap water market here. Let me bring your attention to this column published in the LATimes ten days before for some perspective. (The columnist, David Shaw, used to have the specific job of critiquing his own paper… I hope he gets a chance to do a post-mortem on the PR disaster the ‘Gropernator’ stories turned out to be for the messengers).
Kim
October 8, 2003 at 6:30 pm
4Ken’s right - the issue didn’t arise because women wanted to smear Arnold, but because some long-standing allegations of his abusive behavior were FINALLY investigated by a local reputable news organization. Since some of those allegations had been printed in magazines much earlier (the March 2001 issue of Premier, for instance), it seems like someone in the media could have brought this to light sooner… but I don’t think it would have mattered.
One thing that MIGHT have mattered to the public is Arnold’s connection with Ken Lay. (When a woman asked him recently if he was “in bed with Ken Lay”, he retorted, “I’d never be in bed with you!” Which didn’t address her question, nor was it particularly witty. Whether all/some/none of the 16 women’s claims of molestation are true, this guy’s a real asshole.) But we really didn’t hear much about Arnold’s connection to Enron in the papers, on TV, etc — they were too busy making movie-title puns.
The real question is, “Why did the media give Arnold unbelievably huge gobs of free airtime/ink, and (almost) no actual investigation?” Did Arnold get a free ride in the media because he’s a celebrity, or because he’s a Republican celebrity?
(Even without the media fawning all over him, plenty of the citizenry would have done so. As though voting for Arnold means you’ll be cool by proxy. Still, he’d have been beatable, if the media hadn’t elected him long ago.)
verycreativename
October 8, 2003 at 8:39 pm
5the difference is arnie was not a pedigree politican who used his political office to get pussy, he was just a horny actor. while most of the accusations against clinton were inaccurate and irrelevant, the distinction must be made. that, and i just wanted to say “pussy”.
xian
October 8, 2003 at 8:51 pm
6Adam, I respect your intellectual honesty. Here’s a poser then, was Anita Hill the same kind of sandbagging of Clarence Thomas? I’m sure some of the Republicans we liberals traditionally despits for supporting him felt he was owed the benefit of the doubt in the breech.
On lighter matters, did anyone catch der Gropenfuhrer saying after he voted that the election was now in the hands of “the god”?
I was like, which one? Is it a bad translation from the Deutsch, or someone more like Cthuhlu?
Eva
October 8, 2003 at 10:43 pm
7Kudos on “der Gropenfuhrer” Xian. Very very funny.
Rook
October 9, 2003 at 10:23 am
8Wow! Well stated. Well stated. You may have lost the respect of one of your readers, but you certainly received an adequate adjustment of respect from this reader to more than make up for what was lost. If this version of MT didn’t mess with the cut and past function, I’d use blockquote to let you know the best part of the post…….. oh hell, I’m going to type it in,
Outstanding job of getting to the heart of the matter. You’ve seperated the two issues and made a strong case for your position.
BRAVO!
Dugrless
October 9, 2003 at 11:38 am
9I’m curious as to where Mrs. S. comes down in all this. I know some the wilder allegations (made, it seems now, by that inveterate exaggerator & playboy “Arnold’s Former Self”) were back in the 70s, but at least one of the groping charges was for just a couple of years ago.
I don’t think I’m alone in the liberal world thinking, “Well, if Maria Shriver can stomach him, he can’t be all bad.” She comes from a respected Democratic family. She must have been raised with liberal values. She wouldn’t sit by while her husband used his power & charisma to get what he could on the side, would she? I mean, she’s a Kennedy for chrissa… oh, wait a minute. Never mind.
Murray
October 9, 2003 at 12:12 pm
10Adam,
You’re injecting intellegence, insight, logic, and balance into politics. Of all people, you should know that politics runs on dissinformation, repitition, emotion, ideas no longer than 6 words, and a division into good and evil.
As the news industry knows “If it bleeds, it leads, if it thinks, it stinks”.
Ras_Nesta
October 9, 2003 at 12:25 pm
11As the unrequited de-respector, let me say that once again you skip over the Austrian Ass-muscle’s power over all the “little people” that he groped/bullied and that as being the reason they didn’t leap forward. What could all the piss boys that depend on him for a salary do, report him to the papers (who need access to him for their vacuous entertainment coverage)?
POWER is the reason that things of this nature go unreported and unpunished. That’s why my mom didn’t press her case against her principal. She just figured that she’d move on to another school. Well, the pigfucker that harassed her put a nastygram in her Teacher Credential Folder(which she can’t see, since it was stored at her college), effectively ending her career.
That’s why your saying that this crime is not enough to vote against Arnis the Anus sickens me. He has already admitted to his sexual assaults: “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Yet, you say “I thought there were a lot of good reasons to vote against the Augmented Austrian, but that[sexual assault] wasn’t one of ‘em by my lights.” Well, I’ve personally seen the damage that a “little groping” will do to a woman.
As for the rest of you mindless apologists, would you mind if your mother/wife/sister/daughter were groped at work?
adam
October 9, 2003 at 12:52 pm
12Ras Nesta-
Hammering home the power-and-intimidation points about sexual assault and calling those who disagree “mindless” doesn’t persuade me here. Nor does Arnold’s “where there’s smoke there’s fire” amount to a confession of sexual assault.
Personally, I’ve had loved ones fall victim to sexual harassment, and I don’t think I’ve ever felt angrier. Also, I’ve had loved ones fall victim to (later completely recanted) sexual assault charges, and my anger there was similar.
But all of that is simply not the point as far as I’m concerned. The point, to me, is the time-frame for these inarguably unproven accusations. And it’s also impossible to deny that Davis et al USED those late-breaking stories to try to gain ground.
Once again: these charges oughta be pursued. But insulting those of us who found the timing and exploitation of those charges unfair, well, that ain’t right either.
Ras_Nesta
October 9, 2003 at 1:10 pm
13My tone reflects my frustration that some kind of twisted “PC” ethos makes seemingly intelligent people give the Austrian Oinker a pass on this issue. You all say, “Mustn’t be unfair to poor little Arnold, after all, every one of the 16 accusers could be lying. Look! Clinton’s penis!”
How does Arnie’s “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” in reply to a question about the sexual assault claims NOT equal a confession?
I give up.
dahlia
October 9, 2003 at 4:05 pm
14Adam,
When the “campaign” is less than two months long, how is it possible to have any accusation seem other than “last minute”? The entire election was “last minute,” for Chrissakes!! I’m in agreement with you, Ras-Nesta. Had “der Gropenfuhrer” [that’s wonderful, by the bye] announced his candidacy last year, had he run in the regular election, all of this would have been reported long before the Republican primary, which he never would have been able to win. I don’t think the electorate who voted for him allowed these charges to affect them because:
1. Everyone already knows that he is a chauvinist, a cad, and a boor.
2. Californians utterly despised Gray Davis.
3. Men, and even some women [I’m ashamed to say], particularly those types who love Arnold, don’t really care about any of those women he harassed.
Ras Nessa, you have every right to be outraged. Adam, you may have used the wrong candidate to champion your point. He assaulted those women and is so arrogant he probably assumed they loved his boorish charm!
Susie
October 9, 2003 at 4:29 pm
15I’m Adam’s sister. I totally agree with Adam on this and I’m glad he addressed it.
I would never had voted for Arnie, but he’s innocent until proven guilty. If the same insta-allegations had cropped up before the elections and it was a Tim Robbins or a Robert Redford all good Dems would be screaming “Republican dirty tricks” before you could whistle.
Davis was lower than a snake’s testicles for trying to use the allegations for his own gain.
The black and white moveon.org TV ads that told you to think of your female relations before voting for Arnold were even lower. The women in the ad looked like helpless sad victims. It was scare tactic voting on par with W. Horton ads… it said, “If you’re a woman, or your mother is a woman, or your wife, or your sister, or your daughter, or there’s a woman where you work, you cannot vote for this man,”
I picture a dumb guy thinking, “Hey wait a minute… My sis IS a woman… actually so’s me wife…OH MY GAWD MY MOM IS A WOMAN TOO!”
The ad said, “Look out! Once Arnold has power he’ll feel up every Californian woman! Even your own mom… if she’s a woman, that is.”
I’m glad my bro had the guts to defend someone on the other side of his politics.
t.a.
October 9, 2003 at 7:23 pm
16i just had a thought: pat paulsen died too soon. he would have been a shoe-in for lt gov
Anonymous
October 10, 2003 at 2:42 pm
17Probably a moot point now, but I’m a female Californian and I agree 100% with Susie’s post.
I’ll add that harrasment is not the same as sexual assault. It’s disconcerting how quickly people want to conclude Arnold is guilty of full-on assault–essentially calling him a rapist. C’mon.
On a different note–I actually LOVED the short election cycle and think we ought seriously consider shortening presidential elections. Maybe have all the primaries in June - July. Two benefits:
1) Cheaper. One reason politicians are beholden to “special interests” on both sides is because the elections are sooo long. People are criticizing Clark for being so foolish as to declare a mere 14 months ahead of the election
2) Greater voter engagement. We *already* have voter fatigue from Election 2004 and no-one (other than NPR’s Mara Liasson) is watching the Dems debates. Another year of this? Ech.
I’ll stop ranting.
N.L.MacGill
October 13, 2003 at 6:20 am
181) The election cycle was too short for these allegations to be properly investigated.
2) The just-in-time publicity and rat-a-tat-tat pace of the allegations just before the elction was a tired and transparent political dirty trick. And Gray Davis lost my respect trying to squeeze those little drops of blood from that polital turnip.
3) Once upon a time, in August ‘03, I thought Schwarzenegger was a smart guy who played big dumb dufus roles because he had realy sexy muscles and thus could make a lot of money that way. Now, based mostly on his reactions to the allegations, I think he’s a big dufus just barely bright enough to be a despicable cad (and I don’t give a hoot what his muscles look like).
4) I’m not sure I agree with Adam, but I respect his position. And I do agree that there were so many other good reasons to prefer Gallegher or Gary Coleman to Arnold that the allegations could be held as irrelevant.
5) I’m a woman, and I have been sexually harassed. It is horrible and demeaning, and can throw a mean monkey wrench into one’s career. Anyone who does such a thing commits a crime against all women and all people.
6) False allegations of sexual harrasment, in addition to throwing a mean monkey wrench into someone’s career, harm and insult women who have been subjected to true harrassment. Anyone who does such a thing commits a crime against all people and all women.
7) I’m a woman, and I have been sexually assaulted. It is an evil, soul-injuring, life-altering, horrific act of violence. It is to sexual harrassment something like SARS is to the common cold. Anyone who commits such an act is guilty of a truly heinous crime against the victim and against all humanity.
8) False allegations of sexual assault are a terrible thing to do to the subject, and an insult and a liabilty to survivors of real sexual assaults (who have more than enough to cope with and try to recover from). Anyone who makes such an allegation commits a deeply repugnant and harmful crime.
9) Susie, you’ve got a cool brother. And he’s funny sometimes, too.
John Isbell
October 13, 2003 at 3:41 pm
19It just deleted a long damn comment of mine. I’ll save this. Ahnold has called the charges “Old news.” It looks like Gloria Allred is about to sue him, a pretty airtight defamation case. She got $10 million for one from a CA GOP senator ten years ago. I expect others. Atrios has details.
John Isbell
October 13, 2003 at 3:51 pm
20Just to be clear: “Old news” is Ahnold’s reponse to his promise to address the 15 charges after the election. That should be clear now.
BTW misdemeanor sexual battery under CA law is not sexual harassment, nor is it consensual sex in the Oval Office. Where are the allegations of Ahnold having affairs, or even flings? This is not libido.
OTOH, humorists should write what they want. That seems pretty obvious.