this recall election business is funny stuff. having spent my summer on the east coast, i've tried to distance myself as much as possible from this circus; my friends expect me to represent the entire state of california when they ask me, "what's wrong with you people?"

i could go on and on about the antics of these campaigns, about the comedy of gary coleman v. larry flynt, etc. but that's too easy to do.

(by the way, this is an election where a candidate may win with less than one percent of the vote. but like i said, let's put the antics aside.)

holding a recall election has stripped the political process of its glitz and glam; career politicians are a fashion no-no. when the petitions were first circulating, i was disgusted by the man-on-the-street interviews: "well, i dont really know what davis has done wrong, specifically. but i hear that we need to get him out. sure, i'll sign." my personal belief is that davis is experiencing, unfortunately, hoover-syndrome: right man, wrong time.

watching schwarzenegger's press conference the other night made me think about political portrayal, personality politics, and issue-taking. schwarzenegger's running has been easily written off as celebrity egotism at its best. aside from running as a republican candidate, he has given little indication of his political stance on specific issues.

i thought it was clever: schwarzenegger doesn't seem to have much of a platform. rather than make that a weak point of the campaign, he's made it his strength. he's going to "listen to the people." he's not going to make promises before he gets into office. he's not going to propose a budget fix until he can take a meticulous look under the hood. in short, schwarzenegger will not give us a taste of his politics until he is in office. his no-stance stance appeals to and comforts many people i've talked to. meanwhile, i'm already picturing the second recall.

but as i was hashing this all out in my head, i had to ask myself, "what does this say about you and your politics, amy? are you too jaded to take a man's word?"
schwarzenegger claims to have no special-interest-group ties, large monetary donators, or any specific agenda. yet, i see schwarzenegger not as a clean candidate, but rather as a political joke. schwarzenegger acting apolitical makes me feel more wary than reading about ashcroft's national tour.

should i be concerned that i trust schwarzenegger less than an agenda-loaded, promise-making career politician?

at the very least, i'm thankful that the schwarzenegger campaign has overwhelmed simon's attempts to access the spotlight. pleasantly enough, the catalysts of the recall effort have been pushed out of the picture. so thanks, ahnold.

i guess i'm wondering, on the spectrum of issue-taking, where can a politician sit in order to portray his/herself as the ultimate candidate?   ¶ 21:10