E-Mail This Article to a Friend What’s up in California? (continued) BY ADAM REILLY

Q: Will the California recall be replicated around the country?

A: Maybe yes. Maybe no.

M. Dane Waters, president of the nonpartisan Initiative & Referendum Institute in Leesburg, Virginia, predicts recall campaigns will take root in other states now that the public has gotten a whiff of how it works. But he’s not sure they’ll succeed. "I think there’ll be a desire to do this elsewhere, because I think what happened in California made citizens wake up and say, ‘Hey, here’s another mechanism to hold government accountable,’" Waters says. "Whether that’s going to translate into an increased number is hard to say. You’re going to have to have a perfect alignment of the planets like you did in California, with extreme voter discontent and individuals and groups willing to put up the money to make it happen."

Even if California’s perfect alignment is replicated, only 15 states currently allow for the recall of statewide elected officials. Of these, seven require conviction of a crime or proof of serious wrongdoing for recalls to proceed. The eight others allow recall elections for any cause deemed sufficient by top election officials. California falls into the latter category. While this makes the recall process sound easy, Waters insists it isn’t. All 15 states with recall provisions mandate that a significant threshold of signatures — based on the number of votes cast in the previous election for the office in question — be gathered for recalls to go forward. Most states put that number at 25 percent; in California it’s only 12 percent. And in most states, the signatures must be gathered within 90 to 120 days after the recall process is initiated; California allows 160 days.

Walters notes there have been 31 previous pushes to recall a sitting governor in California, each of which failed when proponents couldn’t obtain the requisite number of signatures. Organizers of this year’s recall drive were helped both by abnormally low voter turnout in the 2002 gubernatorial election — linked by many to voter dissatisfaction with Davis and his opponent Bill Simon — which meant that fewer signatures had to be gathered overall, and by the deep pockets of Darrell Issa.

Asked what Progressive Era reformers, who introduced "direct democracy" mechanisms such as the recall, initiative, and referendum to California politics, might say about the 2003 recall drive, Waters — whose organization isn’t taking a position on the issue — answers cautiously. "The whole basis of direct democracy was to hold government more accountable," he says. "But the reality is, as with any lawmaking device, it’s not perfect, and after 100 years it probably needs some adjustment so it is consistent with the theory and philosophy of the progressives and populists."

Among his suggested improvements: making it tougher for candidates in subsequent recalls to get on the ballot.

Q: What’s at stake nationally?

A: In an August 19 speech at UCLA, Gray Davis linked the recall to Bill Clinton’s impeachment, the aborted Florida recount that put George W. Bush in the Oval Office, and recent redistricting efforts that would create (in Texas) and strengthen (in Colorado) Republican control over those state’s congressional districts. "This recall is bigger than California," Davis said. "What’s happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections that Republicans cannot win."

Well, not necessarily. "Bush did not like this recall; there’s no doubt he did not encourage it, but in fact discouraged it," says the Sacramento Bee’s Walters. "The only good outcome in all this [is] to have a strong Republican win, and now of course the White House is trying to do what it can to make that the outcome, but the White House feeling — and the non-ideologue Republican strategic feeling — was, ‘We’re probably better off leaving Gray Davis in place. He’s the most unpopular governor in history, and if we let him, he’s going to poison the well for the Democrats for a generation. Just let him screw up.’ But once the recall was done by these jihad warriors on the right, they were kind of stuck with it."

Indeed. The Golden State’s 55 electoral votes (recently increased from 54 due to the 2000 US Census results) might be somewhat more accessible to Republicans if the much-despised Davis stays in office. But if he’s voted out, there’s no guarantee that Schwarzenegger will win. A recent poll in the Los Angeles Times shows Bustamante leading the would-be "Governator" 35 percent to 22 percent. If Davis is voted out and Bustamante is voted in, he’ll join Arizona governor Bill Richardson as one of just two Latino governors — both Democrats — in the country, which could undermine Bush’s stated ambition of making the GOP the party of choice for the country’s burgeoning Latino population. And if Schwarzenegger wins, there’s no guarantee that he won’t screw it up big-time, as Vice-President Dick Cheney might say.

As RepublicansAgainstTheRecall.com notes, the recall campaign "diverts important Republican political and financial resources from what should be the number one goal of all California Republicans: the re-election of President George W. Bush, including his victory in California."

Q: Is Arnold Schwarzenegger really a Republican?

A: Sure he is. Just ask him.

Last week, as Schwarzenegger made the rounds on California talk radio, he labored to convince the party faithful that he was one of them. "Let me make this clear," the native Austrian told Eric Hogue, host of a drive-time program on Sacramento’s KTKZ-AM, on the morning of August 26. "I’m a Republican, I’m a proud Republican from the first day I came to this country, and I was so excited about getting away from socialism."

Since everyone knows Schwarzenegger is running as a Republican, why is he spending so much time stating the obvious? Probably because conservative commentators and Schwarzenegger opponents keep hinting that Arnie isn’t the real deal. Before Republican candidate Bill Simon — who was beaten by Davis in the 2002 gubernatorial election — dropped out of the current race, he ran a radio ad calling Schwarzenegger a tax-happy liberal. Rush Limbaugh, who’s since reversed direction and become an earnest "Governator" backer, originally questioned his Republican credibility. So did American Prowler commentator George Neumayr, who warned his readers Schwarzenegger was really a "Democrat in Republican garb."

All that said, the California Republican Party, which doesn’t plan to endorse a GOP gubernatorial candidate in the recall election, vouches for Schwarzenegger’s legitimacy. "I can tell you he’s been an asset not only to the California Republican Party but to the Republican Committee and our Republican presidents going back to George Bush Senior," says Mike Wintemute, spokesperson for the California Republican Party. "There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind in terms of the Republican Party that he is indeed a Republican."

Still, whether Schwarzenegger deserves the (R) next to his name depends on your definition of Republican. Although Schwarzenegger has taken great pains to limit substantive discussion of his views, he’s been identified as pro-gay-rights, pro-choice, and pro-gun-control — stands anathema to many right-wing Republicans — since the early stages of the campaign. His aggressive advocacy of Proposition 49 — an expensive initiative for expanded after-school programs that California voters approved in 2002 — has raised concerns among those who believe government’s primary responsibility is to lower taxes and get out of the way. Also, it’s still too soon to gauge the fallout among cultural conservatives from Schwarzenegger’s recently revealed 1977 interview with the now-defunct adult publication Oui. In it, the then-29-year-old discussed, among other things, a gangbang he and other elite bodybuilders participated in at Gold’s Gym in Venice, California: "[T]here was a black girl who came out naked. Everybody jumped on her and took her upstairs, where we all got together.... [J]ust the guys who can fuck in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think they don’t have a big-enough cock, so they can’t get a hard-on."

Youthful peccadilloes aside, Schwarzenegger has labeled himself a proponent of "fiscally responsible government," a mantra dear to Republican voters’ hearts. Former Republican governor Pete Wilson, who backed ballot initiatives ending state affirmative-action programs and denying illegal immigrants state-sponsored social services, is co-chairing Schwarzenegger’s campaign. In addition, Schwarzenegger fine-tuned his views on social issues during an interview with Sean Hannity of FOX-TV last week, clarifying his positions on gay rights (in favor of domestic partnership, against gay marriage), abortion (some parental notification, under most circumstances), and gun control (he supports it), a combination many moderate Republicans are likely to find palatable.

If questions persist about Schwarzenegger’s commitment to Republican principles, conservative voters could throw their weight behind alternatives like state senator and anti-tax crusader Tom McClintock and former Major League Baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth. But the challenges from the right also seem to be forcing Schwarzenegger — who appeared intent on running as a tabula rasa — to engage in some grudging self-definition and to become, despite himself, a more substantive candidate.

Q: What do the Kennedys think?

A: No family is more intimately linked to the Democratic Party than the Kennedys, so it’s not surprising that Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy and Rhode Island congressman Patrick Kennedy have opted not to back their in-law’s campaign. But whether they view him as a legitimate candidate or a family embarrassment is difficult to say. "I like and respect Arnold," Ted Kennedy said in a statement released last month. The statement, which lauded Schwarzenegger’s support of Proposition 49, also emphasized Kennedy’s opposition to the recall. Ernesto Anguilla, a spokesperson for Patrick Kennedy, offered the Cape Cod Times a more lowbrow response in early August: "The congressman is afraid he might get terminated the next time he sees Arnold, but he supports [Davis]."

Of course, if Ted Kennedy actually considered Schwarzenegger’s candidacy the nadir of American politics, would he say so publicly? Probably not. Still, Kennedy-family biographer Laurence Leamer says the Kennedys and Shrivers really do respect Schwarzenegger and wish his campaign the best. (Leamer prefaces his comments by noting that his brother, Ed, has given candidate Schwarzenegger economic advice.)

"Privately, they are really quite enthusiastic about [Schwarzenegger’s candidacy]," Leamer insists. "I think everyone is. After the string of defeats the Kennedy family has had" — in-law Andrew Cuomo’s withdrawal from the New York governor’s race in 2002, Max Kennedy’s 2001 decision not to run for Joe Moakley’s congressional seat, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s defeat in Maryland’s 2002 gubernatorial election — "it would be nice for them to have a victory for a change."

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com