Monthly Archives: August 2003

September 20-21 in the showroom at the Suncoast Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas: "Martin & Lewis Cannot Appear But Their Sons Can," starring Gary Lewis and The Playboys, Ricci Martin and "The Pack." Hey, I'd pay money to see that. But then I've been up all night writing cartoons so what do I know?

Why did Fox News sue Al Franken? They must have known they (a) had no chance of winning, (b) would look like laughingstocks and (c) would boost the sales of his book with all that lovely publicity. So why did they do it? Well, according to this article in The New Yorker, it was just a matter of appeasing the demands of Bill O'Reilly, who refused to be talked out of it.

Here's one sentence from this AP wire story on the race for governor of California…

"He said four words to me — we have to work harder," said Bustamante strategist Richie Ross.

One hopes Cruz isn't letting this guy add up his polling data for him.

Jimmy Breslin on presidential lying. No one gets outraged quite the way Jimmy Breslin gets outraged.

Got a slightly-angry e-mail from a casual acquaintance who was upset that I hadn't responded to an e-mail he sent me a week or so ago. I am way behind on answering e-mail, so a lot of you are in that category, and I apologize.

But I'm not apologizing to this guy. First off, everyone does get behind, or allow the occasional e-mail to go unanswered. It happens and we shouldn't get peevish about it. Secondly, he sent me another copy of the message I'd ignored and I saw its Subject Line. As a joke, he'd written in, "Generic Viagra and Penis Enlargement." The message had no mention of either of those related topics but since I can't find his original on my hard disk, I'm guessing either I or my Spam filter deleted it without reading.

In his complaint to me, he wrote, "I'm sick and tired of rude people not responding to my e-mails." I can suggest one reason why they do.

No…come to think of it, I can suggest two.

A new Los Angeles Times poll has Cruz Bustamante way ahead of Arnold Schwarzenegger, 35% to 22%. Following them are Tom McClintock with 12%, Peter Ueberroth with 7%, Bill Simon with 6%, Arianna Huffington with 3%, and Peter Camejo and Larry Flynt tied with 1%. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

I don't believe this poll is any more valid than the one the other day that had Bustamante slightly ahead, or the one that had Arnold ahead. For emphasis: I don't believe any of these tell us how folks will vote in October.

However, there's one interesting thing here. The California Broadcasters Association has announced a debate, to be held September 17, of candidates on the second part of the ballot. Gray Davis will not be invited, they say, but they will ask the top six contenders, as determined by non-partisan polling in the coming weeks. If any of the six decline, they say, a chair will be left empty for them.

Now, if they choose to use the L.A. Times poll as their guide, the top six would be Bustamante, Schwarzenegger, McClintock, Ueberroth, Simon and Huffington. I have a hunch they picked six as the cut-off because they figured it would be those six; that the joke or fringe candidates like Flynt and Gallagher would be far enough behind the sixth place contender to justify excluding them. But Simon has dropped out…so does he get included? Why leave an empty chair for a guy who says he's not running? But if you leave him out, you have to include Camejo…and LARRY FLYNT! That's right: We may have a crippled, "loose cannon" pornographer in our gubernatorial debate. This could be very entertaining, and make the whole recall look even sillier than it already does.

They may have to include Flynt, anyway. He's within the margin of error of Huffington, and can afford lawyers who can certainly argue that he can't be excluded from a debate that includes her. Between now and the 17th, he could easily get 2% or 3% in some poll and even be ahead of Simon…so then how do they keep the publisher of Hustler's Hometown Honeys out? I don't know either, but I bet they try to modify or apply the rules so they don't have to build a wheelchair ramp to the stage.

Here's a simple legal explanation of why Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama (who's now been suspended) is wrong to argue that he doesn't have to remove that big stone monument of the Ten Commandments. And this article doesn't even attempt to argue about Separation of Church and State.

You should always read Joshua Micah Marshall's weblog, Talking Points Memo. But this latest entry may be the most important thing he's ever posted.

The polls on the recall seem to be all over the place. Schwarzenegger and Bustamonte seem to be out in front, and if you take the margin of error into account (as almost no one does), they're neck and neck. Polls also say that Californians are ready to boot Mr. Davis, though perhaps the tide is turning in his favor. Maybe.

It strikes me that all this polling is pretty meaningless. There are still a lot of undecideds, at least with regard to the second part of the ballot, and voters don't know very much about what either Arnold or Cruz intends to do. Before election day, each will probably have a "scandal" or two, and that may affect things, as may voters coming to understand more about the procedure. In the last week, I've explained to three separate friends, all of whom I would rate as quite intelligent, that no matter how they vote on Part One of the ballot, they can still vote on Part Two. All three thought that if they voted to keep Davis, they'd have no say in his replacement. If that's widespread, that could signal major shifts in the weeks to come. This kind of balloting is utterly unprecedented and that further cripples the polling process, which is based on taking current samplings and plugging them into models of past elections. Since there's never been an election quite like this one, the pollsters are flying blinder than usual.

My gut feeling at the moment, which is almost as worthless as the polls, is that the first half of the ballot will be a squeaker, hinging on which side is more motivated to actually cast ballots. I feel Davis will do better than a lot of people expect, but that's only if he doesn't do something real stupid before October 7. And I sure wouldn't bet money that he won't. At the moment, he looks like he's running against George W. Bush and a Republican effort to undo elections. That will only get him so far, which probably won't be far enough. At the moment, the person out there making the best case that Davis doesn't deserve to be blamed for the state's fiscal crisis is Peter Ueberroth, and no one's listening to him.

Bill Simon, who I saw on TV yesterday vowing he would never drop out of the race, has dropped out of the race. His spokesperson said, "There was absolutely no pressure, no phone calls — this was a decision made by Bill Simon based on rational conclusions," and of course we don't believe that for a minute. In any case, most of his support will probably go to McClintock. If McClintock stays in to the end and splits the Republican vote, we're probably looking at Governor Cruz. If McClintock gets out, then the race is Arnold's to lose, and he might do just that. The Republican base can't be that wild about a guy who's pro-choice, in favor of some gay rights, thought the impeachment was a sham, makes violent movies, smokes dope, has more rumors of marital infidelity than Clinton ever had, etc. It won't take a lot of sizzling revelations to discourage those folks from flocking to the polls.

But who knows? I have an uneasy feeling that the end result will be a governor who has a lot less support than Davis. That is, Davis will lose because only 47% of the state wants to keep him…but then he'll be replaced by a guy who's wanted by 28% of the state. That such an outcome is even possible ought to alarm some people. Is this the kind of Democracy we want to bring to Iraq? But I keep reading articles by folks who think any process that gets rid of G. Davis can't possibly have anything wrong with it.

Some articles are now saying that Rob Reiner seriously considered entering the race. If you think you're sick of "Terminator" references dominating the election coverage, just imagine how looney it would be with "Meathead" on the ballot.

And I just read that Gallagher is trying to get himself included in some of the major debates. If he gets into one, and if he will answer some question about the budget by smashing a watermelon, I swear to God I will vote for him.

Over at IGN FilmForce, Peter Sanderson has a regular column on comics, which is always worth reading. If you missed this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego, it's especially worth reading since he's serializing detailed coverage of some of the programming. Here's a link to Part One of his report. Here's a link to Part Two, which includes his take on the annual Jack Kirby Tribute Panel. And here's the latest (but not the last) part, which is Part Three. Peter is a wise and perceptive soul, and I'd probably say that even if he didn't say such nice things about panels I host.

Here's an article about how late night TV shows have to avoid showing Mr. Schwarzenegger for fear they'll then have to grant equal time to his 4,204 opponents.

The piece might have mentioned that years ago, Johnny Carson made the mistake of having the Mayor of Burbank on his show during an election. He wound up having to bring on all of the other candidates.

Anthony Curtis is the main man behind The Las Vegas Advisor, your best guide to how to spend your bucks in that city. (It's also one of the few that isn't subsidized by hotel advertising, so they actually review things.) Most of the LVA site requires a subscription but if you go to Vegas, it's probably worth it. In the meantime, you can read this article on another site. In it, Mr. Curtis describes how a couple can have a terrific three-day vacation in Vegas, complete with an awful lot of cheap alcohol, for a little under $500.

Just found out that Harvey Pekar, creator and subject of American Splendor, has his own weblog.

I met Harvey exactly once…in the "Professionals Hospitality Suite" at a comic book convention in Chicago. Someone introduced us, Harvey immediately complained that there were no donuts on the refreshment table, then he walked out. I never got to tell him that I liked his work and occasional TV appearances, but given his style and personality, I was somehow not disappointed by our brief encounter.

One of the websites I check every morning is one that's offered up by The Comics Journal. It's called ¡Journalista! and it does a fine job of reporting on what's happening in the world of comic books and strips. Today's installment (here's a direct link to it) reports on a comic book company that seems to be very slow about paying its talent. I don't know a thing about this particular dispute but I think it's great that, since resolving it in private seems not to have worked, this kind of thing is getting covered.

¡Journalista! also points our way to this interview with Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and to this reproduction of a 1933 fanzine story by Siegel and Shuster. It was called "The Reign of the Super-Man." Not a bad name for a comic book character some day…