Gray Davis, Closet Wacko
Published October 03, 2003
The woman refuses to discuss the assault on her with the media, but has relayed much of the story to me through a close friend. On the day in question, State Controller Davis was raging over an employee's rearranging of framed artwork on his Los Angeles office walls. He stormed, red-faced, out of his office and violently shoved the woman, who we shall call K., out of his way. According to employees who were present, K. ran out clutching her purse, suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized at Cedars Sinai for a severe nervous dermatological reaction, and never returned to work again.
According to one close friend, K. refused to sue Davis, despite the advice of several friends, after a prominent Los Angeles attorney told her that Davis would ruin her. According to one state official. K. was allowed to continue her work under Davis from her home "because she refused to work in Davis's presence."
(Checchi's [Davis' opponent at the time] campaign should get a copy of the tape recording Davis left on K.'s home telephone, in which he offers no apology to K. but simply requests that she return to work, saying, "You know how I am."
Well, we do now Gray.
Actually, this sounds more and more familiar the more I read. As I've opined elsewhere, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't really have a lack of respect for women, he disrespects most human beings of either gender. Sounds like a common problem in this governor's race.
The nearly-final statement in the article is a real corker. Remember, this was written six years ago!
So my question is simple: how did we get stuck in the position of hoping that the job of governor of California, one of the most august positions of power in the Western world, is not won by a mega-fibber or a closet wacko.
When is that not the case?
- Gray Davis, Closet Wacko
- Published: October 03, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Phillip Winn
- Phillip Winn's BC Writer page
- Phillip Winn's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The L.A. Times didn't report on these rumors largely because they didn't meet the standards they used for the Schwarzengroper story.
That story used some anonymous sources, but always spoken to directly by the Times and corroborated by named sources.
Jill Stewart's 1997 story has one named source for one incident. The other incident is neither directly reported nor corroborated. It's not only anonymous--it's a friend-of-a-friend thing.
If you read the L.A. Times story, you'll see that none of the six incidents of Schwarzengroping they report on are based on anything so shaky.
The Times editors said they had plenty of other leads about A.S. sexual-harassment incidents, but they couldn't corroborate them to their satisfaction in the seven weeks they had for the investigation (this election doesn't have anything near the lead time that a typical election would--it's not the Times' fault that the story is being published when it is).
Arnold's behavior follows a pattern that is confirmed time and again by witnesses not connected to each other or involved with partisan politics. The Gray Davis rumors reported by Jill Stewart simply don't meet that standard.
ME: Goose, meet Gander.
GOOSE: No! My feathers are completely different, and the coloration is all wrong!
ME: What was that about raising the standard of evidence again?
GOOSE: But that's different! It's DIFFERENT!
ME: The 1997 sources said they were afraid to come forward, as did the 2003 sources. How is that different? More importantly, what the heck does either issue have to do with job performance, the issue at hand?
GOOSE: It just does, that's all.
ME: Sorry, buddy, your goose is probably cooked.
So let's see:
Gray is a psycho
Arnold is a perv
Cruz supports a 5th-Column organization
And McClintock can't win
Why can't McClintock win? Please? Pretty please?
6 sources
all directly spoke to the Times
all corroborated by other, named parties
vs.
2 sources
1 directly spoke with Jill Stewart
1 spoke through an intermediary
neither is corroborated by a named party
If you'd like the L.A. Times to lower its editorial standards to Stewart's level, you can send them a letter with your request. If they grant your request, though, they're going to need a lot more paper to print all of the (hundreds? thousands?) of A.S. stories that meet the lower standard.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/8895)
I heard this...I think it's terrible. So much for my decision to vote 'No' on the recall.
I didn't vote for him the first time anyway.