I realize that no one except maybe John Carroll has ever accused the Daily Monopoly L.A. Times of being Fair� or Balanced�, but assuming they are still in the “news” business, couldn’t they have reported this a little earlier in the campaign? Ironically, the Monopoly attempts to preemptively debunk any suspicions of partisanship with this statement:

The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger’s rivals in the recall race. And none of the women approached the newspaper on her own. Reporters contacted them in the course of a seven-week examination of Schwarzenegger’s behavior toward women on and off the movie set.

Translation: The Davis campaign didn’t have to ask us to be their stooge; we were glad to assume that role on our own, and planned for seven weeks to cook up a story we could drop today, less than one week before the election.

The 1975 incident involving E. Laine Stockton is supsect on its face, as the incident was alleged to have occurred at Gold’s Gym, which didn’t allow women at the time. Others are even shakier since most of the women won’t allow themselves to be named. If this whole story is bogus, it would have been ncie to have at least heard it a few weeks ago, when there was time for all sides to sort the issues out. If the story is for real, and Californians are about to elect the Republican Party’s answer to Bill Clinton, it sure is a shame we didn’t know that a few weeks ago, when McClintock was a still a credible contender who could have taken Arnold’s place, which does not seem realistic now. Either way, thank you for nothing, L.A. Times

UPDATE: Daniel Weintraub, in a piece cleared by SacBee censors, argues that the odd timing of the piece is a coincidence, and not evidence of a dirty trick. Although I’m reluctant to disagree with the Insider, I’m just not buying this one. If they have this much detail to report today (yesterday, actually, for those who read the web version of the paper), then the notion that they didn’t have the goods on at least half the story three weeks ago - coupled with the fact that the Monopoly “just happened” to endorse Davis in 2002 and oppose the recall in 2003 - does not pass the smell test.

UPDATE x2: Schwarzenegger has now admitted to “behaving badly” on the set of some movies, while maintaining that [a] lot of the stuff in the story is not true.” Hat tip: Prestopundit.

UPDATE x3: Luke Ford recommends voting for Arnold just to spite the Times, arguing in effect that a vote for Arnold is a vote against the Monopoly’s own brand of puke politics. He may be on to something. Luke was one of the ones who outed Kobe Bryant’s accuser, who probably didn’t deserve the unwanted publicity. Now’s his chance to redeem himself by also outing Arnold’s four anonymous moral snipers, who do.

UPDATE x4: Lest anyone miss the forest for the trees, and consider voting against the recall on this basis, consider the following:

1. We have a separate recall and replacement election for a reason. The first question is about Davis, not who you expect will succeed him. If you think Davis is a good governor who shouldn’t be recalled, vote no. If you think he’s a bad governor who should be recalled, vote yes. By analogy, consider Clinton’s impeachment in 1998: do you really think those Republicans after his head liked the idea of Al Gore becoming President?
2. Even if the allegations in the Monopoly’s hit piece are 100% accurate, Arnold is still the lesser evil, as Davis is much worse in that department. Grabbing boobies or offering to French-kiss someone’s butt, however inappropriate, might be considered “playful” in a moral cesspool like Hollywood. Shoving, shaking, and throwing heavy objects at your subordinates isn’t considered “playful” anywhere, except maybe in a few of Uday Hussein’s torture camps.