Please, please read this excellent piece by Cary Tennis in Salon (who writes the best advice column ever) called The Moviegoing Voter
This election — on the heels of the only slightly less celebrity driven win of the equally unqualified George W. Bush — is a reflection of an abdication of citizenship and an entertainment addled collective id. As Tennis says, it will not make me sleep better at night.
I have been thinking for some time now about the appeal of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the appeal of an avenging hero from a foreign land who rescues us from our indolence and despair. I have been thinking about the visceral appeal of a terminator, the man of violence and certainty who will end things as they are and bring about a new world that looks as fresh and bright as the world of childhood. I have been thinking about Schwarzenegger as a man with the appeal of a violent Christ into whom all our sins of weakness and equivocation are poured in the form of punch cards: A Christ with special sticker options, a V8 Christ, a Hummer Christ who does not turn the other cheek but fires his weapon with the vehemence of Jehovah and the casual coolness of a gangster, who slaps around the whimpering, duplicitous and heartless — actionless! — gray father Davis who has unforgivably let the roof collapse on California, who has let Easterners and Southerners trick us and take our stuff, who in his pasty, wimpish impotence has failed to register even one pure, simple, masculine note of outrage at what he has allowed to happen, whose gestures are as cold and empty as the gestures of a department store mannequin, whose face is as unmarred as the face of a virgin, whose tactics seem the tactics not of a lion but of a lowly, cunning reptile, a snake or poisonous insect.
This photo from the Joe Weider Collection was published in the Sports Illustrated edition of December 7, 1987
The article linked above was written in 1991. We’ve elected an ruthless, fascist misogynist and the press has known all this about him for many, many years.
As I roll around the various comments boards this morning, commiserating with my brethren, I’m finding a rather disturbing strand of analysis that portends very ill for the future of the Democrats if this idea gets perpetuated within the party.
There is a strong and vocal group within our coalition that have come to believe that the reason the Democrats have come up short recently is because they are simply not liberal enough. If it weren’t for the DLC and Joe Lieberman and, most importantly, the evil pernicious Bill Clinton, these people believe that the Democrats would be running the country today. Indeed, Gray Davis would have survived if he had not been such a tool of the DINO wing of the Democratic Party.
By golly, he got what he deserved for not being a true liberal and if he had been none of this would have happened.
This is followed by calls to action to purge the party of these nefarious centrists and moderates who have cost us our natural majority by playing to the middle.
I would be very interested in seeing the evidence to support this, particularly in light of the fact that the state of California, including 30% of self described liberals, just voted for a Republican who can in no measure be seen as more liberal than the man he replaced.
I have complained vociferously about the establishment’s unwillingness to fight the Republicans and I am certainly supportive of the idea that consensus politics will no longer work. I agree that a change of tactics is necessary to defeat a very ruthless and dishonest GOP political machine.
But, everybody had better wake up to reality and wake up quick if they think that centrist/moderate Democrats should be drummed out of the party because that is the surest ticket to minority status for a generation.
Here’s a little list of Democrats for you:
Tom Allen, U.S. Representative, ME Joe Baca, U.S. Representative, CA Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA Chris Bell, U.S. Representative, TX Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV Marion Berry, U.S. Representative, AR Earl Blumenauer, U.S. Representative, OR Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA Dennis Cardoza, U.S. Representative, CA Brad Carson, U.S. Representative, OK Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI Jim Cooper, U.S. Representative, TN Bud Cramer, U.S. Representative, AL Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL Peter Deutsch, U.S. Representative, FL Cal Dooley, U.S. Representative, CA Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL Anna Eshoo, U.S. Representative, CA Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN Charles Gonzalez, U.S. Representative, TX Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA Baron Hill, U.S. Representative, IN Ruben Hinojosa, U.S. Representative, TX Joseph Hoeffel, U.S. Representative, PA Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ Mike Honda, U.S. Representative, CA Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY Chris John, U.S. Representative, LA Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI Nick Lampson, U.S. Representative, TX Jim Langevin, U.S. Representative, RI Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT Zoe Lofgren, U. S. Representative, CA Ken Lucas, U.S. Representative, KY Denise Majette, U.S. Representative, GA Carolyn Maloney, U.S. Representative, NY Jim Matheson, U.S. Representative, UT Bob Matsui, U.S. Representative, CA Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY Karen McCarthy, U.S. Representative, MO Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY Michael Michaud, U.S. Representative, ME Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA Brad Miller, U.S. Representative, NC Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA Grace Napolitano, U.S. Representative, CA David Price, U.S. Representative, NC Silvestre Reyes, U.S. Representative, TX Mike Ross, U.S. Representative, AR Steve Rothman, U.S. Representative, NJ Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA Max Sandlin, U.S. Representative, TX Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA Brad Sherman, U.S. Representative, CA Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA Vic Snyder, U.S. Representative, AR John Spratt, U.S. Representative, SC Charles Stenholm, U.S. Representative, TX Bart Stupak, U.S. Representative, MI John Tanner, U.S. Representative, TN Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA Mike Thompson, U.S. Representative, CA Jim Turner, U.S. Representative, TX Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM Robert Wexler, U.S. Representative, FL David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN John Breaux, U.S. Senator, LA Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND John Edwards, U.S. Senator, NC Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA Bob Graham, U.S. Senator, FL Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA Zell Miller, U.S. Senator, GA Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR.
The above are the national representatives who belong to the DLC. Notice the states they represent and then tell me that the key to victory is to purge these people (and their constituents) in favor of more liberal candidates.
19 of our 49 Senators are members. 74 of our 204 Representatives are members. They represent 37% of the Democratic coalition in congress.
That is not just a fringe group. These people don’t subscribe to centrist thinking because it’s cool. They do it because a rather large number of Americans do too. And even in a state like California, which is as good a Democratic state as exists, you find one of the Senators and many Representatives belong to the DLC. And again, it isn’t for the wild and crazy slumber parties. It’s because, as we’ve seen, even a Democratic state is not monolithically liberal.
Seeing the DLC as the reason for our troubles is simply the wrong analysis. That is not the problem. (If anything, it’s the Republicans who have the policy problem — they could not win if they ran honestly. And they’re on the verge of crashing into that internal inconsistency.)
The Democrats’ problem is one of tactics and strategy. We have been too complacent and too stiffly unresponsive to the modern politics of personality, public relations and advertising. We have consistently underestimated the power of Republican dominated talk radio (which I believe was hugely responsible for Arnold’s victory yesterday.) We have been slow and sluggish in recognizing that we are in a new political era in which symbolism and image are going to substitute for serious dialog and in which substance is only relevant to those who are deeply engaged.
The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the perfidious DLC or a legacy of Clintonism. Moderate Democrats are a fact of life and if liberals insist on turning this election into a refendum on purity or make it a “grassroots vs the establishment” battle, we will lose.
The Republicans are going to have more money than anyone can even imagine in this election. They will be spending it on everything from blanketing the airwaves with patriotic images of Junior at Rushmore to opening offices in every single precinct to get out the vote. If anyone thinks, after watching this debacle of an election here in California, that we can win without using every single resourse at our disposal — and that includes establishment Democrats with experience and access to money and power — then we are fools.
The lesson isn’t that we aren’t liberal enough. And, it’s not that we are too liberal. It’s that we are naive about the modern political landscape. That’s what we need to change.
If you are watching MSNBC and Fox this afternoon, it’s pretty clear that Arnold has won. The exit polls usually tell the tale early in the day and if Matthews and Noonan are any guage (the first is grinning and spitting maniacally and the other is sitting by the shore with wave after wave of orgasmic anticipation rolling over her face) the recall has been a rousing success.
I plan to vote anyway, hoping that their statistical analysis is wrong, but I can see that they’re pretty sure it’s going to be a long night of Republican gloating. Tune in and join the premature party. We only have 4 hours until the polls close. No reason to wait.
My Gawd, these Republicans and their mediawhore cheerleaders have the grace and class of chest thumping neanderthals.
Update: I just voted. The lines were longer than I’ve ever seen them and the poll workers said it was a lull.
Something needs to be done about the press on this. I’m sure their ratings are very important and all, but they have behaved very irresponsibly since about 2pm this afternoon, completely unable to contain their excitement at what they believe to be a rout by their favorite groping misogynist.
If they can contain breaking news for an entire evening, teasing the story ad nauseum to get us to tune in to their regular news cast, they can keep their pie holes shut until polls close on election day. This one is completely out of hand.
Update II: Atrios reminds me that the Republicans were all atwitter when they called Florida 15 minutes before the polls closed in the panhandle. I wonder how they would have liked seeing the press having a victory party for Gore on television 5 hours before the polls closed.
Not a problem, I’m sure. See, that was in Florida and it took place three years ago and people were driving to the polls and it was a plot. This, on the other hand, is just old fashioned, shoe leather reporting.
Update III: Jesse has the perfect rundown of MSGOP election coverage:
Apparently, Ann “88” Coulter is going to be on the show, too. This brings the balance of confirmed conservatives/hacks/nostalgists for Germany circa 1938 to anyone left of Zell Miller up to 5:1.
Via Counterspin Central and Atrios I read that gubernatorial candidate Georgy Russell claims she was roughed up at a couple of Schwarzennegger rallies.
I have no idea if it is true, but I can say that here in Santa Monica yesterday afternoon about 15 young white males with signs were standing outside Arnold’s headquarters on 4th avenue shouting down some code pink protesters across the street in very crude and intimidating terms.
One man walking across the street shouted, “your guy is going down!” to which the honorable and dignified “Schwarzennegger Studs” replied, “he’s not going down on you, you fucking faggot!” followed by more cries of “faggot, pussy … etc.” Then they literally goosestepped down the sidewalk. I’m not joking. I saw it.
So I’m not surprised that Arnold’s followers would rough up a woman at a campaign rally. That’s how brownshirt thugs operate.
Susan Faludi has an interesting take on the subject in this piece for the LA Times this past week-end:
According to the article, after Schwarzenegger had bedded the woman, he picked up a phone and, claiming he was dialing his lawyer to reschedule an appointment, asked her to take the receiver. It turned out the number he dialed was her husband’s, and while she held the phone, Schwarzenegger yelled into it these words, cleaned up by The Times’ censors: “I just [made love to] her! I just [made love to] her!” As Tina Turner would say, what’s love got to do with it?
A Schwarzenegger spokesman told The Times that the episode with Peters and his wife was just a case of “locker room humor.” Which actually explains a good deal of Schwarzenegger’s appeal to male voters. He comes out of the testosterone-ruled world of weight rooms and action movies, where women are the designated observers and adorners, and where men find their place in the wolf pack through a well-established ordeal of hazing and humiliation.
The men who don’t make it to the top in that world still have the compensation of identifying with the one man who does, as long as they don’t identify with any of the women, as long as they don’t “say nothing.” They still belong to the pack, by virtue of being male.
No matter how much sand gets kicked in their face, they still can fantasize that one day they, too, like Charles Atlas, will do enough leg lifts to rise in the ranks. At a time of deep economic and international insecurity, the easy power of the bully boy is a siren call to the American male populace, as evidenced by President Bush’s continuing allure to the very men whose interests are least served by his domestic and foreign policies. The locker room game works as long as only men get to play, and only as long as they agree to play by certain rules. One rule is that sensuality is verboten, but aggressive jocularity is not. Humiliating women in a “playful” way can signal a powerful rejection of “the feminine” and a powerful reinforcement of male bonding.
It is a very peculiar sort of sexual/cultural/political theatre we seem to be playing out in this country these last few years. Perhaps it’s a reflection of the vast fundamental changes that have happened as women and gays have begun to become professional and social equals.
The resulting confusion and obsession with stupidity, coarseness and vulgarity on the part of sexually repressed white males (and the women who love them) in the political realm is the best explanation as to why people like Arnold and George W. Bush could become iconic masculine figures.
They are not, after all, real heroes. They pretend to be heroes — one being a rich playboy who never had to work hard a day in his life and the other a vain fame seeker who spent his entire career wearing make-up and posing naked in front of a camera.
In fact, you could say that these two great manly heroes of the right are not manly at all. Bush, who refused his opportunities to truly compete in any traditionally masculine spheres, whether in sports, business or the military, has actually led the life of a wealthy socialite. Arnold, whose body has been the source of his fame and fortune, is little more than a beauty queen turned cheesecake actress.
But that doesn’t phase the starry-eyed droolers of the right whose faith based philosophy permeates every aspect of their lives:
Republicans have seldom shied from an embrace of manliness. The New York Times recently ran a report on the new Bush re-election headquarters. It explained that the offices display two large photos: one of President Bush “sweating and looking rugged in a T-shirt and cowboy hat”; another of Ronald Reagan “also looking rugged in a cowboy hat.” And all this was before Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for governor of California. Yup, that’s the Republican Party.
Of course, George W. Bush is famous for his “compassionate conservatism.” He is capable of great tenderness of expression, much of it related, no doubt, to his triumph over alcohol and his religious awakening. But Bush as hombre has been the dominant theme of his post-September 11 presidency.
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, likes to tell a story about Mr. Bush out in Iowa, early in the 2000 presidential campaign. A group of Hell’s Angels rode into town, and Gov. Bush simply waded into them, hugging them, bonding with them, relishing them. Not every American politician could manage this, without affectation. Mr. Bush was also, in that campaign, known to have a much better time with the rough ‘n’ ready cameramen in the back of the plane than with the (much more effete) reporters who also accompanied him.
Was this written by Peggy Noonan? How about Kathryn Lopez? Kate O’Beirne of “Clinton couldn’t credibly wear jogging shorts” fame?
Can you hear the desperation in his words? The neediness? The deep and abiding desire to be part of that wolf pack? Indeed, it seems to be a desire so deep, and yet one so impossible for these men and women to achieve in any authentic way, that they have embraced a faux, fun house mirror version of masculinity so imbued with symbolism and phony iconography that it has inverted upon itself and become a parody of the manliness for which they yearn.
As a matter of fact, this Republican obsession with manliness is remarkably similar to the good humored, self referential, hyper-masculinity of the gay scene. A scene in which “cowboys” often “relish” wading into crowds of “bikers” and where body builders are the epitome of masculine pulcritude.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
But, I think the least these goosestepping adolescents and breathless columnists on the right could do is stop pretending to be manly and brave when they are obviously refusing to face up to some very complicated feelings about their place in the world. And, I’d really appreciate it if they’d spare us the romance novel drivel about their masculine icons at least until either of them do one seriously manly thing in their lives that doesn’t include cosmetics, daddy’s money or sophomoric frat boy sexual behavior.
(Thanks to Dwight Meredith for the Nordlinger tip.)
” [I] did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.”
[…]
“This matter is between me, the two people I love most – my wife and our daughter – and our God,” Clinton said.
[…]
“Wasn’t that pathetic? I tell you, what a jerk,” Hatch was overheard saying Monday night to his entourage as he left a television studio in Utah where he had given a number of interviews.
Now
“I cannot remember what was happening 20 years ago, 15 years ago. But some of the things sounds like me, which I was the first one to come out and say, you know, some of the things could have happened, I want to apologize,” Schwarzenegger said.
“We have to look at people who they are today, not what they may have done wrong in the past,” Hatch told the National Press Club Friday. “There isn’t a person in this room or anywhere else in the world who is perfect, who has lived perfectly.”
[…]
In answer to a question posed by reporters Friday, Hatch noted that Schwarzenegger has said most of the groping allegations detailed between 1975 and 2000 in a Thursday Los Angeles Times story are not true “but he’s apologized for acting improperly at times in the past.”
Why do you suppose it is that Republicans have such a hard time finding success as intellectuals?
Rep. Porter Goss said Thursday that the uproar over allegations that White House officials purposely identified a covert CIA agent appears largely political and doesn’t yet merit an investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he chairs.
“I would say there’s a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security,” said Goss, R-Sanibel. “But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful — and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else — willful disclosure, and I haven’t seen any evidence.”
Goss said he would act if he did have evidence of that sort.
“Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I’ll have an investigation,” Goss said.
[…]
Goss said he has no evidence that the controversy is more than a product of “wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politics during an election year.”
Or, maybe he could ask his good friend Notra Trulock, freeper, liar and moron extraordinaire, to look into it for him. Notra was well known as a complete crank and total nutjob by the CIA, but ole’ Porter was so concerned that Clinton was some sort of Manchurian Candidate by way of Little Rock, that he couldn’t wait to get the investigation rolling. Goss and his pal Chris Cox investigated for months and the result was the single most outrageous intelligence committee report ever submitted. It was entirely debunked both before and after its release.
But, it wasn’t partisan in any way. No it certainly wasn’t.
All of this reminds me — I wonder whatever happened to Ms. Katherine Leung, GOP fundraiser and FBI plaything?
… there’s also one more person who could end this – the senior administration official who pointed his finger at two White House officials in the WaPo article 8 days ago.
Oh yes, indeed. Let the games begin.
Many assume that it’s Tenet for a variety of reasons, many of which are very compelling.
But, I think it’s somebody else. Somebody who has voiced concerns in the past about the political operation of the White House. Somebody who expressed alarm in Ron Suskind’s seminal Esquire article that Karl Rove would have unfettered power with George W. Bush after the resignation of Karen Hughes:
“I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary.”
That, of course, was Andy Card.
Someone else in the same article went on to say:
“But many of us feel it’s our duty—our obligation as Americans—to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It’s just kids on Big Wheels who talk politics and know nothing. It’s depressing. Domestic Policy Council meetings are a farce. This leaves shoot-from-the-hip political calculations—mostly from Karl’s shop—to triumph by default. No one balances Karl. Forget it. That was Andy’s cry for help.”
In fact, if you go back and read the entire article, you find that there were a number of White House officials who said things like:
“It’s an amazing moment. Karl just went from prime minister to king. Amazing . . . and a little scary. Now no one will speak candidly about him or take him on or contradict him. Pure power, no real accountability. It’s just ‘listen to Karl and everything will work out.’ . . . That may go for the president, too.”
In his amazing article Susskind said:
They [Rove’s friends] heard that I was writing about Karl Rove, seeking to contextualize his role as a senior adviser in the Bush White House, and they began calling, some anonymously, some not, saying that they wanted to help and leaving phone numbers. The calls from members of the White House staff were solemn, serious. Their concern was not only about politics, they said, not simply about Karl pulling the president further to the right. It went deeper; it was about this administration’s ability to focus on the substance of governing—issues like the economy and social security and education and health care—as opposed to its clear political acumen, its ability to win and enhance power. And so it seemed that each time I made an inquiry about Karl Rove, I received in return a top-to-bottom critique of the White House’s basic functions, so profound is Rove’s influence.
So, who knows? But, it does seem entirely possible that rather than this being a purely political turf war between the Neocons and the CIA (as is being promoted with the idea that Tenet was the one who blew the whistle on the Plame leak operation) that the “Senior Administration Official” does come from the White House and is one of those who have been sitting on their disgust at the total domination of politics over governance.
Matt Yglesias says that voters shouldn’t let Arnold’s alleged piggish behavior affect their votes (not that he would vote for him):
Bill Clinton taught us that a person can have a strong record on women’s issues while treating women quite poorly in his personal life, just as LBJ showed us that a racist can end Jim Crow, while Truman and Nixon proved that anti-semites can be good friends of Israel. George W. Bush proves that a nice guy can screw the country up. This isn’t to condone Schwarzennegger’s misogyny (or anyone else’s racism or anti-semitism), simply to suggest that it’s not all that relevant to whether or not he should be governor.
Perhaps. But, if “character” is not relevant as to whether one should vote for Schwarzennegger, what is? He has no public record on which to base an assessment. The man is running on his movie star image and,
frankly, his association with the Kennedys. If he had a known record of strong support for women’s rights as Clinton did, or had demonstrated a shrewd knowledge of the winds of political change as Johnson did, or had years of foreign policy experience as Nixon had, perhaps his alleged character flaws could be put into the perspective of an entire career and would not loom as large when making a decision in the voting booth.
But, Arnold has no record of anything but being a very ambitious and pampered movie star.
One thing people may not realize about Arnold is that he is peculiarly unqualified for office even by Hollywood standards. He does not produce or direct films, he doesn’t run his own production company and he never risks his own money. Even Sandra Bullock and Demi Moore are more involved in the creative direction of their careers and have developed and produced their own vehicles.
Arnold is a hired gun. He comes on to a set without any responsibility for the actual nuts and bolts of raising money, adhering to the budget, maintaining the creative flow while massaging egos under strict time constraints and dealing with impossible logistics. In other words, he has been entirely removed from the day to day business and responsibility of the movie business. He shows up for work, sits in his trailer until he’s called, does his bit and goes home. When the film is finished he goes on a publicity tour to promote it. That’s it. It is not surprising that he would find plenty of time to be “playful” on the “rowdy” set. He isn’t involved in most of the work that goes on all around him. Indeed, he probably isn’t even aware of it.
There aren’t a lot of big stars like this anymore. Most of them , like Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks, are producers at the least and the smart ones like Eastwood and Redford have run their careers like a business with themselves at the producing helm most of the time and often behind the camera as well. They have experience running a production, hustling for money, dealing with executives on a business level, handling other stars’ egos etc. They have shown throughout their careers that they are, within their field … leaders.
Arnold is not one of those guys. He has come a long way from his beginnings as a body builder and created a niche for himself in high priced action films that make lots of money (particularly overseas.) But, he has not shown any kind of leadership in his own life beyond touting physical fitness and making a lot of easy money.
So, how does a person evaluate someone whose life and career show no obvious qualifications for the office he is seeking? Isn’t he, in fact, running solely on the idea that his character — as personified in his movie roles — is what qualifies him for office? Isn’t he presenting himself as a real life Action Hero?
In truth, his real life (at least for the last 20 years) has been one of incredibly spoiled and princely pampering, to the point that he has absolutely no clue about what is acceptable behavior because he’s been indulged beyond any normal everyday person’s ability to even imagine. This is why he says things like, “No one ever came to me in my life and said to me that I did anything, that said ‘I don’t want you to do that, you went over the line Arnold.'”
I imagine that this is quite true. Nobody tells Arnold Schwarzenegger, “I don’t want you to do that.” In his world, he is completely free to act with impunity because in his world he is the pasha, the prince, the coddled “product” who is beyond the realm of normal human behavior. His power is the power of a cossetted and overindulged brat.
These accusations may or may not be true. But, they certainly do fit the profile of this man who has never done anything but seek fame and power for their own sakes. If there were anything in his life that mitigated these alleged character flaws — intellectual development, a record of accomplishment, demonstrated leadership or even a campaign that featured a detailed and serious program and a well articulated vision — perhaps it wouldn’t be wise to take easily made and difficult to prove accusations in the last days of a campaign as a deciding factor.
But with Arnold, it’s pretty much all we’ve got to go on.
