Susan Estrich, Professor of Sexual Discrimination Law at USC, author of "Sex and Power" and "Real Rape," national campaign manager for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis, offers her views on the L.A. Times' late stories about Arnold.
Exactly as L.A. liberal pundit Mickey Kaus predicted on October 1st, the L.A. Times launched its biggest salvo against Arnold on October 2nd. Estrich shares her opinion in today's Times:
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.
Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.
But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through?
To his credit, Schwarzenegger apologized for "behaving badly." So should the Los Angeles Times.
Article comments
1 - Arnie
what a load of crap.
2 - Natalie Davis
To his credit? Pfft. Self-serving move. And too little, too late. Lucky for him, I don't live in California.
3 - Andrew
Ms. Estrich, who has no use for men who abuse women (some years ago, she was a rape victim) and who is a Democrat and a lawyer who specializes in this particular area of practice, can speak to this issue with somewhat more credibility than most observers. I rather suspect most thinking people will agree with her; for one thing, she has been intellectually consistent on this subject over the years, as contrasted with some of those now rising to levels of high dungeon, i.e., NOW.
4 - Phillip Winn
Andrew, I suspect you meant high dudgeon.
5 - Steve Rhodes
I interviewed Estrich in 92 and she was impressive talking about the rise of Bill Clinton and the role of money in politics (though her candidate, Dukakis, may be the only Democrat less appealing than Gray Davis).
And Real Rape is a good book, but she is wrong here.
She should understand why the women would want to remain anonymous, not have come forward earlier or pressed charges.
If there truly was nothing to their stories, Arnold wouldn't have said he had behaved badly. Maria wouldn't have looked so pained standing next to him last night.
Though I do hope Chris will post her next column critical of Bush with as much enthusiasm as this one.
6 - Brian Flemming
Daily Howler:
7 - Tim
Read Kausfiles.com for truly intelligent commentary -- he not only agrees with Estrich, describing the LA Times piece as that shoe waiting to drop, but reports gleefully that this media hit is actually making Arnold go UP in the polls. The fact that Maria Shriver, a friggin' Kennedy for crying out loud, is willing to live with and defend this allegedly Neanderthal man should be answer enough to these charges, which remain ludicrously anonymous, describe acts which DO NOT violate any law, and which, in the end, are a total smear job. It's par for the course for Democrats, who have taken their once proud and decent party, and sleazed it in to the ground. I'l LOOOOOVE to hear what Clinton has to say about Arnold, BTW.
8 - Brian Flemming
Mickey Kaus, kausfiles.com:
9 - Chris Arabia
You distort what otherwise would have been a reasonable contribution to the debate. You bolded "The L.A. Times was right to publish them," but Kaus didn't in the original, and you were quoting. Next time please put [Emphasis added.] in the appropriate place.
The timing of the publication is one of many factors to consider in assessing the story. The primary issue should be Arnold's (mis)behavior and its effects on others, but the L.A. Times opted to do what it thought would maximize political damage (also according to Kaus). If they failed in that goal, then they are incompetent as well as malicious. Hooray for them.