scott
2003-10-04 06:19:42 UTC
Hi there fellow Californians and everybody else! I was listening to
giant radio station KFI this afternoon (Los Angeles) and was astonished
to hear about this story. Apparently our little
Governor Dufus has had a terrible temper - towards women - and it has
been kept under wraps
by the LA Times since 1997. There have been many rumors about this but
nothing ever
published - the NY Times picked it up and reported it, though - printed
a transcript and
ran it.
I want Davis out but try to keep an open mind. It is amazing to me that
the LA Times
would keep all of his financial ineptitude's under wraps (refusing to
report them) but
this is absolutely fascinating in light of the recent mudslinging!
Seems that 'Arnold the Nazi Groper' isn't alone ... we now are finding
out about 'Dufus The
Terrible Shaker!'
I can't wait to see if the LA Times makes mention of it this weekend -
or decides to
maintain their status quo ... all the way to the bitter end!
I'm stick'n with Arnold ... for the story ...
Go to;
http://www.kfi640.com
And from there to:
http://www.kfi640.com/gumbyviolence.html
... OR, just read it here (below).
Note: Since this story, I have interviewed K. and published subsequent
columns about these incidents. She did go back to work but with
elaborate rules in which she never had to work in the same room with
Davis. She finally sought a transfer because she couldn't bear being
around him and facing another possible attack.
Originally published in New Times Los Angeles, Nov./Dec 1997
Closet Wacko Vs. Mega-Fibber
By Jill Stewart
I have this file, labeled Gray Davis, that for the last few years I've
been stuffing with all the bizarre little tales that are quietly shared
among journalists and political insiders about the man who, though
probably viewed as a blandly pleasant talking head by most Californians,
is in fact one of the strangest ducks ever elected to statewide office.
Long protected by editors at the Los Angeles Times--who have nixed every
story Times reporters have ever tried to develop about Davis's storied
history of physical violence, unhinged hysteria and gross profanity--the
baby-faced, dual personality Davis has been allowed to hold high public
office with impunity.
Perhaps you are among the millions never told of Lieutenant Governor
Davis's widely known--but long unreported--penchant for physically
attacking members of his own staff. His violent tantrums have occurred
throughout his career, from his days as Chief of Staff for Jerry Brown
to his long stint as State Controller to his current job.
Davis's hurling of phones and ashtrays at quaking
government employees and his numerous incidents of personally shoving
and shaking horrified workers--usually while screaming the f-word "with
more venom than Nixon" as one former staffer recently reminded
me--bespeak a man who cannot be trust with power. Since his attacks on
subservients are not exactly "domestic violence," they suggest to me the
need for new lexicon that is sufficiently Dilbertesque. I would
therefore like to suggest "office batterer" for consideration as you
observe Davis in his race for governor.
The most disturbing aspect of Davis's troubled side is the ease with
which the power elite in California, many of whom know he is unbalanced,
laugh off the long public deception that has created Davis's public
persona. "He'll never be governor," one well-known Democratic state
senator explained to me last year, justifying his own failure to
criticize or out Davis. "He'll never be the Democratic nominee," the
senator insisted.
And that's certainly how things stood, in my own mind, until Davis
announced his intention to run for governor. It quickly became apparent
that Davis's only Democratic "competition" would be Al Checchi, a guy
who squeezed $50 million out of a lot of little people ten years ago in
his sudden vault from silver-spooned graduate of Harvard Business School
to Texas mega-multimillionaire during the reorganization of Disney. The
Disney deal made Checchi an instant player who immediately began
dreaming of becoming a senator--or was it governor?--of Texas.
So self-absorbed in building his millions is Checchi that, although he
has lived in Beverly Hills with his family for much of this decade--when
he wasn't decamped to his mansion on Lake Harriot in Minneapolis during
his takeover of Northwest Airlines--most of my friends still think
Checchi comes from somewhere in Northern California. They can be
forgiven their ignorance, because throughout the civic debates that have
embroiled Los Angeles, Checchi has been a cipher. He is a leading
champion of no causes, has established no meaningful charities, has left
no laudable trace. He's the 312th richest man in America, and nobody can
even pronounce his name.
So it was with alarm that I read the very similar speeches given by
these two men as they both offered plans to reform the dismal academics
in California's public schools, a scandal that many observers believe
will be the hot issue in the governor's race.
In his speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last week,
Checchi at least had the nerve to identify teacher incompetence and lack
of teacher testing as a key problem. Davis, who has long slept with the
power anti-reform teacher's unions in Los Angeles and other cities,
could not bring himself to utter such a blasphemy. In his only major
divergence from Checchi, in a speech to Town Hall of Los Angeles in
September, Davis largely blamed parents.
Observing this pair of oddballs, the notion struck me: Isn't it a fatal
flaw of the Republicans, not the Democrats, to promote candidates for
top office who have no right to lead a civil society? How can it be that
the Democrats suddenly suffer Dan Quayle Disease, after their years of
carping about the Republicans' penchant for nominating louts and fools?
More specifically, why on earth is the California Democratic Party
allowing such sour milk to rise to the top, when California so
desperately needs great men and women in charge?
One cannot get a straight answer to these questions via official
channels, such as the Party itself. But one can at least delve into the
true nature of the life and times of the disturbing Davis and, as his
detractors predictably dub him, of checkbook Checchi.
Most crucial of all is the fact that both Davis and Checchi have based
their considerable career successes on the perpetuation of carefully
crafted whoppers.
"I guess Gray's biggest lie," says his former staffer who notes he often
flies into a rage, "is pretending that he operates within the bounds of
normalcy, which is not true. This is not a normal person. I will never
forget the day he physically attacked me, because even though I knew he
had done it before to many others, you always want to assume that Gray
would never do it to you or that he has finally gotten help."
On the day in question, in the mid-1990s, the staffer was explaining to
Davis that his perpetual quest for an ever-larger campaign chest (an
obsession she says led Davis to routinely break fundraising laws by
using his government office resources and non-political employees to
arrange fundraisers and identify new sources of money) had run into a
snafu. A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer:
"He just went into one of his rants of, 'Fuck the fucking fuck, fuck,
fuck!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up
to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the
shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said,
'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing! Think what you are
doing to me!' And he just could not stop."
Perhaps the worst incident--long known to Davis-adoring editors of the
Los Angeles Times but never published by them--was Davis's attack four
years ago on a loyal aide in Los Angeles who for years acted as chief
apologist for his "incidents."
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 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.
Of course, the problem is that Davis's only serious Democratic opponent,
Checchi--though not missing obvious nuts or bolts like Davis--has also
built his entire public life on a disturbing fabrication which throws
into severe doubt his ability and worthiness to run California state
government.
As a San Jose Mercury News writer and a New Times writer showed in
recent exposes of Checchi's history at Northwest Airlines, Checchi's
claims that he "saved" Northwest in a dramatic takeover in 1989, and
that he deserves to be governor of California because he is a turnaround
genius, are not supported by the facts.
Northwest was not, in fact, a troubled airline when Checchi--using
inside information from his best college buddy who sat on Northwest's
board of directors--dreamed up a plan for buying up Northwest stock with
other investor's money and forcing Northwest into a position of selling
the company to Checchi and pals. In fact, the company spiraled into
trouble and near-bankruptcy under Checchi, requiring both major union
concessions in 1993 and a huge government bail-out in 1992.
Yet Checci openly chortles about how he risked less than $10 million of
his own money on the original $3.65 billion takeover deal, which has
today made him a very rich man.
He is very, very proud and has every reason to be," insists Darry
Sragow, Checchi's campaign manager.
With two men running for governor who are so willing to gloss over their
questionable histories, the unsettling tradition of "opposition
research" may play a more critical role than ever in the history of this
race. (Op Research, if you're not a cynic in the know, is the practice
of hiring political assassins to dig up dirt. The damaging info is: A)
widely broadcast or B) dangled in private before the offending candidate
as a way to silence that candidate on a major issue on which they have
been personally compromised.
Garry South, the talented campaign manager hired by Davis, has hired op
research whiz Ace Smith (I'm not kidding about that name) who operates
his assassin outfit from the Bay Area. Darry Sragow, the inspired
campaign manager hired by Checchi, has hired the Berkeley and Houston
firm of Rice and Veroga.
I asked both camp if they intend to go after the really Big Lies both
men are relying upon: Gray as the mild-mannered man of decency, Checchi
as the savvy savior of troubled institutions.
Says Elena Stern, an official with Checchi's campaign: "Al is adamant
about not running a negative campaign, so he will only offer
comparisons, not attacks." One "comparison" Stern pointed out is that
Davis' camp recently planted a hit story against Checchi in the San
Francisco Chronicle claiming that Checchi is facing a discrimination
lawsuit by a fired worker. The fine print, however, is that the suit was
thrown out by the 9th Circuit three years ago, and it arguably has
little remaining merit. Says Stern, "By comparison, Gray Davis has
actually lost a race discrimination lawsuit" filed against him by a
former female employee.
But is the Checchi camp going to unveil to voters Davis's history of
violent "incidents" and hysterical fits? Stern wouldn't say, and Sragow
said he "questions whether they way a candidate acts in private has
anything legitimate to do with the campaign. So I don't think you'll be
hearing from us about whatever violence is alleged amongst Gray's staff
or others."
By contrast, South, who admits that Ace Smith has been digging up dirty
for Davis's use "for nearly a year" seems far more prepared to discuss
the lie holding up the house that Checchi built.
"Until he fucked up Northwest Airlines, Checchi had visions of sugar
plums about running for office in Minnesota, and there were numerous
local news reports about that in '89, '90 and '91, and about Checchi
even meeting with political consultants," says South. "He denies it now
because he needs to look like a loyal longtime resident of California,
but we think voters want to know that his interest in California is
recent indeed."
The ploy of trying to cover up one's sudden self-serving interest in
California did not work for another carpetbagging multimillionaire,
Michael Huffington, and it is likely to backfire on Checchi as well. For
example, California voters will be disturbed to know that shortly after
the employees bailed out Northwest and the government spent nearly $1
billion saving the airline, Checchi sold his Minneapolis mansion in
1994, abandoned all thought of running for office there, and escaped
back to Beverly Hills. Once back, he barely took a breath before hiring
consultants to explore running for California governor.
These two dreary choices for governor leave me hoping that DiFi will
jump into the race. Feinstein's hatred for Gray Davis is well-known, and
a source close to her confirmed to me last week that "She is still
weight a late entry"--in part because she can't imagine a worse fiasco
than Governor Gray. And there's a solid chance that the Republican
gubernatorial candidate, Attorney General Dan Lungren, can beat the
tainted Democrats at the polls next year. But, unfortunately, Lungren is
as free of meaningful ideas as Kathleen Brown, who ran for governor in
1994, and voters may reject Lungren as swiftly as they did Brown.
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. The Democratic Party likes to wheeze on about how it has all the
answers. I'd love to hear them explain this one.
giant radio station KFI this afternoon (Los Angeles) and was astonished
to hear about this story. Apparently our little
Governor Dufus has had a terrible temper - towards women - and it has
been kept under wraps
by the LA Times since 1997. There have been many rumors about this but
nothing ever
published - the NY Times picked it up and reported it, though - printed
a transcript and
ran it.
I want Davis out but try to keep an open mind. It is amazing to me that
the LA Times
would keep all of his financial ineptitude's under wraps (refusing to
report them) but
this is absolutely fascinating in light of the recent mudslinging!
Seems that 'Arnold the Nazi Groper' isn't alone ... we now are finding
out about 'Dufus The
Terrible Shaker!'
I can't wait to see if the LA Times makes mention of it this weekend -
or decides to
maintain their status quo ... all the way to the bitter end!
I'm stick'n with Arnold ... for the story ...
Go to;
http://www.kfi640.com
And from there to:
http://www.kfi640.com/gumbyviolence.html
... OR, just read it here (below).
Note: Since this story, I have interviewed K. and published subsequent
columns about these incidents. She did go back to work but with
elaborate rules in which she never had to work in the same room with
Davis. She finally sought a transfer because she couldn't bear being
around him and facing another possible attack.
Originally published in New Times Los Angeles, Nov./Dec 1997
Closet Wacko Vs. Mega-Fibber
By Jill Stewart
I have this file, labeled Gray Davis, that for the last few years I've
been stuffing with all the bizarre little tales that are quietly shared
among journalists and political insiders about the man who, though
probably viewed as a blandly pleasant talking head by most Californians,
is in fact one of the strangest ducks ever elected to statewide office.
Long protected by editors at the Los Angeles Times--who have nixed every
story Times reporters have ever tried to develop about Davis's storied
history of physical violence, unhinged hysteria and gross profanity--the
baby-faced, dual personality Davis has been allowed to hold high public
office with impunity.
Perhaps you are among the millions never told of Lieutenant Governor
Davis's widely known--but long unreported--penchant for physically
attacking members of his own staff. His violent tantrums have occurred
throughout his career, from his days as Chief of Staff for Jerry Brown
to his long stint as State Controller to his current job.
Davis's hurling of phones and ashtrays at quaking
government employees and his numerous incidents of personally shoving
and shaking horrified workers--usually while screaming the f-word "with
more venom than Nixon" as one former staffer recently reminded
me--bespeak a man who cannot be trust with power. Since his attacks on
subservients are not exactly "domestic violence," they suggest to me the
need for new lexicon that is sufficiently Dilbertesque. I would
therefore like to suggest "office batterer" for consideration as you
observe Davis in his race for governor.
The most disturbing aspect of Davis's troubled side is the ease with
which the power elite in California, many of whom know he is unbalanced,
laugh off the long public deception that has created Davis's public
persona. "He'll never be governor," one well-known Democratic state
senator explained to me last year, justifying his own failure to
criticize or out Davis. "He'll never be the Democratic nominee," the
senator insisted.
And that's certainly how things stood, in my own mind, until Davis
announced his intention to run for governor. It quickly became apparent
that Davis's only Democratic "competition" would be Al Checchi, a guy
who squeezed $50 million out of a lot of little people ten years ago in
his sudden vault from silver-spooned graduate of Harvard Business School
to Texas mega-multimillionaire during the reorganization of Disney. The
Disney deal made Checchi an instant player who immediately began
dreaming of becoming a senator--or was it governor?--of Texas.
So self-absorbed in building his millions is Checchi that, although he
has lived in Beverly Hills with his family for much of this decade--when
he wasn't decamped to his mansion on Lake Harriot in Minneapolis during
his takeover of Northwest Airlines--most of my friends still think
Checchi comes from somewhere in Northern California. They can be
forgiven their ignorance, because throughout the civic debates that have
embroiled Los Angeles, Checchi has been a cipher. He is a leading
champion of no causes, has established no meaningful charities, has left
no laudable trace. He's the 312th richest man in America, and nobody can
even pronounce his name.
So it was with alarm that I read the very similar speeches given by
these two men as they both offered plans to reform the dismal academics
in California's public schools, a scandal that many observers believe
will be the hot issue in the governor's race.
In his speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last week,
Checchi at least had the nerve to identify teacher incompetence and lack
of teacher testing as a key problem. Davis, who has long slept with the
power anti-reform teacher's unions in Los Angeles and other cities,
could not bring himself to utter such a blasphemy. In his only major
divergence from Checchi, in a speech to Town Hall of Los Angeles in
September, Davis largely blamed parents.
Observing this pair of oddballs, the notion struck me: Isn't it a fatal
flaw of the Republicans, not the Democrats, to promote candidates for
top office who have no right to lead a civil society? How can it be that
the Democrats suddenly suffer Dan Quayle Disease, after their years of
carping about the Republicans' penchant for nominating louts and fools?
More specifically, why on earth is the California Democratic Party
allowing such sour milk to rise to the top, when California so
desperately needs great men and women in charge?
One cannot get a straight answer to these questions via official
channels, such as the Party itself. But one can at least delve into the
true nature of the life and times of the disturbing Davis and, as his
detractors predictably dub him, of checkbook Checchi.
Most crucial of all is the fact that both Davis and Checchi have based
their considerable career successes on the perpetuation of carefully
crafted whoppers.
"I guess Gray's biggest lie," says his former staffer who notes he often
flies into a rage, "is pretending that he operates within the bounds of
normalcy, which is not true. This is not a normal person. I will never
forget the day he physically attacked me, because even though I knew he
had done it before to many others, you always want to assume that Gray
would never do it to you or that he has finally gotten help."
On the day in question, in the mid-1990s, the staffer was explaining to
Davis that his perpetual quest for an ever-larger campaign chest (an
obsession she says led Davis to routinely break fundraising laws by
using his government office resources and non-political employees to
arrange fundraisers and identify new sources of money) had run into a
snafu. A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer:
"He just went into one of his rants of, 'Fuck the fucking fuck, fuck,
fuck!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up
to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the
shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said,
'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing! Think what you are
doing to me!' And he just could not stop."
Perhaps the worst incident--long known to Davis-adoring editors of the
Los Angeles Times but never published by them--was Davis's attack four
years ago on a loyal aide in Los Angeles who for years acted as chief
apologist for his "incidents."
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 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.
Of course, the problem is that Davis's only serious Democratic opponent,
Checchi--though not missing obvious nuts or bolts like Davis--has also
built his entire public life on a disturbing fabrication which throws
into severe doubt his ability and worthiness to run California state
government.
As a San Jose Mercury News writer and a New Times writer showed in
recent exposes of Checchi's history at Northwest Airlines, Checchi's
claims that he "saved" Northwest in a dramatic takeover in 1989, and
that he deserves to be governor of California because he is a turnaround
genius, are not supported by the facts.
Northwest was not, in fact, a troubled airline when Checchi--using
inside information from his best college buddy who sat on Northwest's
board of directors--dreamed up a plan for buying up Northwest stock with
other investor's money and forcing Northwest into a position of selling
the company to Checchi and pals. In fact, the company spiraled into
trouble and near-bankruptcy under Checchi, requiring both major union
concessions in 1993 and a huge government bail-out in 1992.
Yet Checci openly chortles about how he risked less than $10 million of
his own money on the original $3.65 billion takeover deal, which has
today made him a very rich man.
He is very, very proud and has every reason to be," insists Darry
Sragow, Checchi's campaign manager.
With two men running for governor who are so willing to gloss over their
questionable histories, the unsettling tradition of "opposition
research" may play a more critical role than ever in the history of this
race. (Op Research, if you're not a cynic in the know, is the practice
of hiring political assassins to dig up dirt. The damaging info is: A)
widely broadcast or B) dangled in private before the offending candidate
as a way to silence that candidate on a major issue on which they have
been personally compromised.
Garry South, the talented campaign manager hired by Davis, has hired op
research whiz Ace Smith (I'm not kidding about that name) who operates
his assassin outfit from the Bay Area. Darry Sragow, the inspired
campaign manager hired by Checchi, has hired the Berkeley and Houston
firm of Rice and Veroga.
I asked both camp if they intend to go after the really Big Lies both
men are relying upon: Gray as the mild-mannered man of decency, Checchi
as the savvy savior of troubled institutions.
Says Elena Stern, an official with Checchi's campaign: "Al is adamant
about not running a negative campaign, so he will only offer
comparisons, not attacks." One "comparison" Stern pointed out is that
Davis' camp recently planted a hit story against Checchi in the San
Francisco Chronicle claiming that Checchi is facing a discrimination
lawsuit by a fired worker. The fine print, however, is that the suit was
thrown out by the 9th Circuit three years ago, and it arguably has
little remaining merit. Says Stern, "By comparison, Gray Davis has
actually lost a race discrimination lawsuit" filed against him by a
former female employee.
But is the Checchi camp going to unveil to voters Davis's history of
violent "incidents" and hysterical fits? Stern wouldn't say, and Sragow
said he "questions whether they way a candidate acts in private has
anything legitimate to do with the campaign. So I don't think you'll be
hearing from us about whatever violence is alleged amongst Gray's staff
or others."
By contrast, South, who admits that Ace Smith has been digging up dirty
for Davis's use "for nearly a year" seems far more prepared to discuss
the lie holding up the house that Checchi built.
"Until he fucked up Northwest Airlines, Checchi had visions of sugar
plums about running for office in Minnesota, and there were numerous
local news reports about that in '89, '90 and '91, and about Checchi
even meeting with political consultants," says South. "He denies it now
because he needs to look like a loyal longtime resident of California,
but we think voters want to know that his interest in California is
recent indeed."
The ploy of trying to cover up one's sudden self-serving interest in
California did not work for another carpetbagging multimillionaire,
Michael Huffington, and it is likely to backfire on Checchi as well. For
example, California voters will be disturbed to know that shortly after
the employees bailed out Northwest and the government spent nearly $1
billion saving the airline, Checchi sold his Minneapolis mansion in
1994, abandoned all thought of running for office there, and escaped
back to Beverly Hills. Once back, he barely took a breath before hiring
consultants to explore running for California governor.
These two dreary choices for governor leave me hoping that DiFi will
jump into the race. Feinstein's hatred for Gray Davis is well-known, and
a source close to her confirmed to me last week that "She is still
weight a late entry"--in part because she can't imagine a worse fiasco
than Governor Gray. And there's a solid chance that the Republican
gubernatorial candidate, Attorney General Dan Lungren, can beat the
tainted Democrats at the polls next year. But, unfortunately, Lungren is
as free of meaningful ideas as Kathleen Brown, who ran for governor in
1994, and voters may reject Lungren as swiftly as they did Brown.
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. The Democratic Party likes to wheeze on about how it has all the
answers. I'd love to hear them explain this one.