California Insider

Gray’s been on tv or radio just about every day lately, and most of the interviews have been fairly uneventful. But today he was on KQED radio with his wife, Sharon, and the interview produced a couple of quotable quotes. The best stuff came from Sharon, who, when pressed by host Scott Shafer to tell us about the real Gray, described him as “kind of the average guy” who is unable to “let it all hang out” because he grew up in an era when people didn’t brag on themselves. She continued:

“And so, what Gray has always said is, he has to be himself. The voters want to know who you are, obviously, and for some reason Gray presents himself as who he is, and they go, ‘Well, we don't know if we like that. Be a little bit different.’ But you can't be genuine if you're trying to be a person that you're not.”

Then Gray, summing up what the recall election is all about, said this:

“(The voters) have to ask themselves, when we went to the polls last November, did we mean it, and do we have a right to second guess ourselves every five minutes? That's really what's at stake.”

I imagine most California voters believe they have a right to second-guess themselves. Implying that they don’t might not be a real fruitful way to win them over.

See the entire transcript here.

With inspiration from our admittedly paranoid friend Tony Quinn, we continue now on the theme of what might go wrong with the "if appropriate" lawsuits pending at the Supreme Court. To refresh, these are the suits seeking to block the second part of the recall election, in which the voters choose someone to replace Gray should he be removed. The defendants in those suits are Kevin Shelley and Cruz Bustamante, both of whom are represented by Bill Lockyer. And so we will have people who opposed the recall defending these lawsuits. Perhaps someone else might want to weigh in with an amicus brief. For context, some might remember what happened with the litigation to stop Prop. 187. The original lawsuit against the initiative prevailed at trial court, and Pete Wilson, who was governor at the time, appealed that judgment on behalf of the state's voters. Then Gray Davis, who had opposed 187, took office, and took over as defendant. You then had opponents of 187 on one side and opponents of 187 on the other. Gray soon sent the matter to "mediation" and the parties emerged with a deal that dropped the suit and struck down virtually all of the initiative. And no one could appeal. At the moment there is nothing to stop the "defendants" in this case from doing the same thing. If Cruz loses this suit, he's in line to be governor if Davis is recalled.

UPDATE: A member of the Establishment responds with some counterpoints:

Even if Ron George wants to help the Establishment, it's not clear what he should do. Is helping Cruz get elected helping the poltiical establishment? Further, would dropping the second part of the election help or hurt Gray? Some people think the "if appropriate" suits are a way to screw Gray because removing the conservatives from the ballot would make Democrats more comfortable voting for the recall. Also: It is not in Lockyer's interest to take a dive on this, because he is getting older, and his last best chance to run for governor is in 06. He can only do that if Gray serves out his term or is replaced by a caretaker. Elevating Cruz serves neither purpose.

TWO MORE UPDATES:

First, here is a piece at politicsus.com comparing the "if appropriate" case to the dispute in last year's New Jersey Senate election, and suggesting that the California Supremes might just bend to the political will of the powerful (if we can only figure out what that is).

And, from a reader, this retort to the Ron-George-is-suspect theory:

Ronald George is Chief Justice, but has only one vote out of seven. He does not control the other justices, so he could hardly rescue the political establishment. My experience with the California Supreme Court is that its members decide cases on their merits, and not on what is politically expedient. Of course, I thought the same of the U.S. Supreme Court until Bush v. Gore. I have read the petition filed by Mr. and Mrs. Frankel against Kevin Shelley, and the argument is not quite so far-fetched. Besides, the California Supreme Court is not bold enough to interfere with the political process, Tony Quinn's paranoia notwithstanding.

As for the Ted Costa initiative, Mr. Quinn should remember that under the California Constitution, initiatives can cover only a "single subject." The Costa initiative's primary goal was to reduce the salaries of legislators, and that is how Costa and his supporters marketed it to voters. They did not tell voters that the initiative also would change the reapportionment process. Now, common sense should tell anybody that reapportionment has nothing to do with legislative salaries, even if you stretch the English language to the breaking point. That is why the Court took the initiative off the ballot. If Mr. Costa had been honest and limited his measure just to salaries, the Court would have let it remain on the ballot. He overreached and suffered for it.

Gray's been getting hammered for refusing to say he wouldn't take taxpayer reimbursement for his campaign costs if he beats the recall. He just announced that he won't take the money, and in a clever twist, has challenged his "millionaire" opponents to promise to help pay for the recall if they lose. Of course they won't, but it's a good line that I am sure you will hear again.

It's too bad, because this was a great story line. The special interests could invest in Gray one more time, then, if they saved his rear, not only would he be indebted to them but they'd get a refund! Not to be.

Here's the statement:

"Over the past several weeks, it has become clear just how much this recall effort is costing the state. Estimates range up to $60 million just to hold the election.

The state's constitution allows my campaign to be reimbursed by the state when I defeat this.

I have decided not to seek any reimbursements because I know that taxpayer money would be better spent on our kids' schools, health care and public safety.

In addition, I'm issuing this challenge to the millionaire Republicans - Michael Huffington, Darrell Issa, Richard Riordan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger - who are currently considering a candidacy.

Should they lose, I challenge them to pledge to reimburse the taxpayers an amount equal to the amount they spend on their campaigns.

This will help the taxpayers defray the cost of this extraordinarily expensive recall election."
NOTE. An earlier version of this item said Gray's campaign was the only source for his $60 million estimate. A reader points out that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has updated his estimate to between $53 million and $66 million. See the new estimate of county costs here. State costs are added on top of that.

Irritated that I keep quoting people who say Arnold is out, George Gorton, the actor's political guru, left a message on my voice mail in the middle of the night insisting that no decision has been made and that no announcements are planned for today. And that, he says, is official.

Here's my column in today's Bee on why Dick Riordan is wasting his time (and ours) if he hasn't learned any lessons from last year's campaign disaster.

Gray has been telling voters that the recall is a cost the state cannot afford. But he hasn't been telling them that if they vote no and keep him in office, the taxpayers might be on the hook for his campaign costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. The Bee's Sam Stanton has the story here.