Arnold Schwarzenegger archives
Last Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked a ballroom full of gay Republicans - and perhaps an entire state - when he announced that he would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California. The religious right screamed "betrayal" from a governor who twice vetoed legislation to make marriage equality the law, and liberal Democrats were befuddled by what they saw as a shift of position.
Outside of California, the announcement to the Log Cabin Republicans was seen as a change of position, making the California Governor seem like the enigmatic maverick he has endorsed for president. But in reality, Schwarzenegger has never changed his position on gay marriage and gay rights; indeed he's signed into law more pieces of gay rights legislation - 19 in all - than any other governor. Instead, he has but slowly revealed how he feels about an issue mired in the complexities of California lawmaking.
Schwarzenegger's position on gay marriage comes from a wholly California perspective. As he sees it, there is a difference between marriage equality as a constitutional amendment versus a legislative statute or an initiative statute. That's why he twice vetoed legislative statutes granting marriage rights. But it's also why he said he would support an initiative statute if the people decided the issue at the polls.
Of course, given his record, it came as a shock when Schwarzenegger announced in 2005 that he would veto a bill from the legislature designed to grant gay couples the holy grail of civil rights: the right to marry. During the month that followed that announcement and his actual veto of the bill, gay rights groups led by Democrats thought they could win him over by comparing him to Governor George Wallace--an attempted scare tactics that in the end proved only to get the door to Sacramento's Horseshoe slammed in their face. He is, after all, The Terminator.
When he vetoed the marriage rights bill, Schwarzenegger was very forthright in his reasoning. Because the voters had passed Proposition 22, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the legislature could not, constitutionally, override the will of the people. Only the courts, or the people themselves with another ballot initiative, could do that.
Schwarzenegger subsequently said that if the people decided to make marriage equality the law, he would be for it.
So let's review the Governator's positions on marriage equality. He is against a legislative statute allowing it, acknowledges the fact that there is an initiative statute banning it on the books, would support a court decision or initiative statute making it law, and is against a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
But until Friday, Schwarzenegger had not taken a position on whether gays and lesbians should have equal marriage rights. This is why there has been so much confusion. Early statements outlined the governor's positions on how the legal means used to grant such rights, not on their merits.
On California's November ballot, there may will be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which would make the debate over legislative versus initiative statutes irrelevant. Governor Schwarzenegger said that he thought that such a measure would not only be "a waste of time" but that he would fight against it - creating room for a solution to the procedural problems that give gays the right to marry - and drawing rancorous applause from the Log Cabin audience.
It's not as easy as saying Schwarzenegger is "for it" or he is "against it" when it comes to same-sex marriage. And if Democrats weren't trying to score political points in their attacks, they might even call his positions "nuanced." The reality is that Schwarzenegger's position is as complex as California's government itself. A telling statement on the the governance of the state as a whole and why it can be so difficult to get anything done in Sacramento.
As America familiarizes itself with this year’s large crop of presidential candidates, it seems easier to compare the people running to office to politicians we’re more familiar with than to get to know them ourselves. Indulging in this parlor game a few weeks ago, I compared Republican Mike Huckabee to the Bill Clinton of 1992—but one without the demons of gluttony and adultery. Today, it's Sen. Barack Obama's turn.
And as with Huckabee, the best comparison for the Democratic presidential contender is a someone from across the political aisle.
The Obama campaign has embraced a monosyllabic message: change. Obama wants to spread hope through change to unify the country, much to the chagrin of those who point out that not all Americans may desire unifying around Obama’s specific version of change.
Here in California the tone of Obama’s message is familiar. It sounds much like that of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's why Obama may have trouble selling his fairy tale to Californians on February 5th. We’ve voted for a politician who promises the sizzle without the fat.
The defining moment of the Obama candidacy came not with his win in Iowa, but in a Las Vegas debate in mid-November. When asked what he would do about sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain - an unpopular idea in the state - the Illinois Senator skipped the pandering and started with the dreaming.
“I don't think it's fair to send it to Nevada... because we're producing it.” Obama said, before continuing, “so what have to do is we've got to develop the storage capacity based on sound science. Now, laboratories like Argonne in my own home state are trying to develop ways to safely store nuclear waste without having to ship it across the country and put it in somebody else's backward.”
Moderator Wolf Blitzer wasn’t buying it, so he pressed on, asking, “until there's some new technological breakthrough, as you would hope and all of us would hope, where do you send the waste?”
After criticizing Blitzer for trying to find out what Obama’s practical solution to a real and urgent problem was, Obama rejected the question entirely: “But -- but -- but I'm running for president because I think we can do it. I reject... I reject the notion that we can't meet our energy challenges.”
Then he finished with a flurry: “We can, if we've got bold leadership in the White House that is saying we are going to do something about climate change, we are going to develop renewable energy sources. That's what I intend to do as president. And we shouldn't, you know, be pessimistic about the future of America.”
As I see it, neither ‘hope’ nor ‘change’ will make the nation’s very real nuclear waste go away, but Senator Obama wasn’t having any of it, acting as if the President could wish away the nation’s problems. Barack Obama isn’t running a fairy tale campaign, as Bill Clinton suggested, he’s running for President of Fantasyland.
When he ran for Governor back in 2003, Schwarzenegger promised change. He said he would “blow up the boxes” of bureaucracy in Sacramento, address the budget crisis, pension reform and other pressing needs. When his actual proposals were put on the ballot two years later, voters rejected them.
With a booming economy, the State’s finances and the Governor’s public image improved - until this month. In his State of the State address, Schwarzenegger sounded like a visionary uniter of men, expressing his faith in government to address monumental crises, as it had in response to the Southern California wildfires last fall. The budget, he suggested, was in just such a crisis, and he entrusted the legislature to rise up to the moment and dream big about what can be done to improve education and provide universal healthcare in the face of a $14 billion fiscal hole.
The good will did not last long, however. Once the TV cameras were turned off and Schwarzenegger actually had to “govern”—releasing his budget blueprint which slashed school funding and closed public parks and beaches - Californians realized that you cannot have sizzle without the fat.
So far, the Obama message is all about the sizzle. We should be optimists about America and have faith that if we can dream a solution we can achieve it. Those are worthy goals indeed, but more often than not, those who hold them are forced to face the dirty reality of governing. Having bought the Schwarzenegger sizzle twice, Californians may be reluctant to think that a third time might work when Obama comes around to charm us.
Every four years, the media proclaims the virtues of the Iowa Caucuses - real Americans from middle America get together in DeTocquevilliean style meetings to make a choice for the next President of the United States. But the preeminence of the Iowa Cuacuses are costing regular Americans like you and me more than we know. It's a little complicated but, trust me, the caucuses and its Holy Grail status in American politics are at the heart of our current economic woes.
Three times in the last week, the stock market has fallen out of bed to the tune of three-digit losses. On Monday an official from CalPERS - the nation’s largest pension fund serving California's state employees - told CNBC’s Money Honey Maria Bartiromo that the pension fund lost two billion dollars in two days, a feat not even the inept California Legislature could accomplish. And it’s all because of the Iowa Caucus.
Behind the market’s woes is what’s being called the “sub-prime debacle.” Families who leveraged their fortunes to buy a home on an adjustable rate mortgage can no longer afford once it adjusted upwards. Foreclosure notices are being handed out in record numbers. Mortgages are costing more these days because interest rates keep going up. The Federal Reserve has hit the pause button on hiking interest rates but refuses to do the one thing that would help many Americans stay in their homes - cutting rates.
In the meantime, Americans are getting hit at the pocketbooks whenever we stuff something into their mouths. Food inflation has joined oil prices among the leading causes of increased living expenses for Americans. Why does food costs more? The Iowa Caucuses.
Food prices are being led by surges in the cost of one item: corn. And it's not just Nebraska football players who are corn-fed. Which, of course, brings us to Iowa.
Eat a pork chop? That pig probably ate corn. So did the cow they slaughtered to make your filet mignon, and so on. The cost of corn contributes to the rising cost of more than just your Frosted Flakes. So as the cost of corn goes up, so does the expense of producing just about everything else in the food supply.
So why is the price of corn going up so much? You guessed it: the Iowa Caucuses.
Corn is the key ingredient in America’s production of ethanol. Coincidentally, they grow a lot of corn in Iowa. That's long been the reason why any politician with Presidential ambition wants you to put ethanol in your car. Pro ethanol policies help farmers sell more corn and ethanol's newly hip status as a possible "green" fuel is, well, making the idea even more popular. But even before it became fashionable, support for ethanol was probably the only thing that all Presidential candidates could agree on.
Senator John McCain, at least, has been honest about his conversion to pro-ethanol policies since he skipped the Iowa caucuses in 2000 but he's now drinking ethanol as if it were a glass of Kool-Aid. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has an eye on next year’s Iowa caucuses as well, making ethanol the center of his energy policy but he doesn’t ask how much it will cost Americans to replace its foreign oil with corn-based ethanol. The Democrats are not immune to the sweet taste of ethanol Kool-aid either Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pro-ethanol stances.
Were the Iowa Caucuses not the first official event in the Presidential selection season, I somehow doubt that ethanol would be so popular. If you want the exception to prove this rule, look no further than California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unable to run for President and unaffected by the Iowa caucuses, Schwarzenegger’s environmentalism embraces hydrogen, not ethanol - a technology favored automakers Mercedes and BMW.
So, in a way, if you lost money in the stock market this week or worse, risk losing your home to foreclosure, don’t Blame President George W. Bush. Don't Blame Canada. Blame Iowa and their first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Sitting around with friends at a barbeque Sunday afternoon, I had to bite my tongue as the group discussion meandered into the issue of veterans’ healthcare.
The liberal friends gathered around the circle recited the horror stories of Iraq War veterans who were told they’d receive full healthcare benefits only to return home mentally ill and kill their families and so on. True or not, I wanted to ask these folks a simple question. How could they simultaneously criticize the healthcare our government gives to veterans while supporting the idea of a universal healthcare system run by that same government?
Before the American people today stand two philosophies for providing healthcare to all Americans.
One school of thought, championed by liberals like Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton would apply the VA model for healthcare to everyone with one single-payer, that payer being the government. The other approach, championed by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger uses a market-based approach like the G.I. Bill, setting minimum standards of coverage and allowing people to choose the healthcare plan which best suits their situation.
I’m not a healthcare expert like others, but I do know that when it comes to government policy, we should not pay heed to the warning we hear in mutual fund ads: Past performance is indicative of future results. Besides, there's an alternative model to use.
Following World War II, the government set about to make sure our veterans got access to higher education and to health care.
Rather than creating a university systems just for vets, the U.S. Congress passed the G.I. Bill, essentially giving veterans what amounted to school vouchers to pursue a university degree. Under the G.I. Bill, millions of veteran - from WWII, Korea and Vietnam - have gotten a higher education. Some went to Harvard, others pursued occupational training but each received education according to their need.
On the other hand, when it came to providing healthcare, the government chose to create a network of hospitals under the Veterans Administration. As my friends' comments indicate, the Veterans Health Administration has not had the success of the GI Bill. The centerpiece of veterans care, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, is in worse shape than your local No-Tell Motel. That scandal has led Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson to resign.
If a veteran wants - you know, actual health care - without having to wait weeks or months for that “elective” surgery to repair his hip, the only option would be to pay out-of-pocket and go to a private hospital.
Some folks just need a physical once a year and urgent care when necessary, while others need a stack of prescriptions. The very nature of the kinds of demands and their variety makes the idea of a one-size fits all plan for health care laughable.
While past performance may not be indicative of future results, when my health is on the line, I’d rather hedge my bets by betting against the goverment-run model we know to be an abject failure.
Clarification: An earlier version of this piece referred to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center as part of the VA, which of course, it is not, being an Army Medical Center. Thanks to Matthew Holt for pointing me through the confusion caused by the Associated Press article on the reasons for Nicholson's resignation.
Editor's Note: Spot-on's health care writer Matthew Holt disagrees with Scott Olin Schmidt and he's put it in writing. You can read that post, which further clarifies Walter Reed's place in the government bureuacracy, here.
Los Angeles hosted an unprecedented conference of Republican and Democrat leaders this week, meeting in this year before the election for an unusual purpose. They didn't gather to discuss not how to claim America's votes as though they were the rightful property of one political party or the other but, instead, this group proposed that this nation be governed for Americans - not its ruling political classes.
The roster of speakers at the University of Southern California’s Ceasefire! conference on bridging the political divide had the superstar status worthy of its location: the new Creative Artists Agency headquarters in Century City. Talking heads Juan Williams of Fox News, Jay Carney and Lawrence O’Donnell of the McLaughlin Group, Michael Kinsley of Slate.com and former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd were but an intermezzo between appetizer courses of mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York (who has left the Republican party) and Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Despite their party affiliations - Villaraigosa and Napolitano are Democrats, Schwarzenegger a Republican and Bloomberg an independent having been a Republican and a Democrats - the themes of the four speeches given by the state and local leaders were remarkably similar: if Washington is going to be paralyzed by gridlock in some many important policy arenas then it is up to the states and cities to take leadership on setting policy and taking action on the pressing issues of the day: immigration, health care and global warming (or climate change).
As Villaraigosa, a Democrat, said, “State and local leaders are moving the needle on big issues because we are daring to think and dream big. We're doing so across party lines. We're doing so by refusing to trim our expectations or to hedge our bets," he said. "Like generations of Angelenos before us - we are imagining a brighter future, and we are building it. And I believe, like cities around the country, we’re demonstrating that it’s possible to create a different kind of government - one that is both fiscally responsible and socially progressive.”
Fiscally responsible and socially progressive - that sounds a lot like the agenda of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promotes an agenda of economic and social freedom.
The California Governor pointed to the debate over immigration as a clear area where a post-partisan agenda would shun the extremes and build compromise. Advocating that politicians “re-introduce the concept of the mainstream,” Governor Schwarzenegger laid out a simple compromise for immigration reform in his keynote remarks, “How about being realistic and just solving the problem? There's a totally reasonable centrist approach to the issue, and it is this; secure our borders while at the same time recognizing the economic and social reality by providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here, and who meet certain criteria, like pay a fine for coming here illegally, learning the English language, and being law abiding citizens.”
If starting to build bridges across Washington’s partisan divide sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve heard it before.
At the end of the day, however, a Post-Partisan approach to governing will only work if it can translate into a post-partisan way of running for elected office. With the exception of Ronald Reagan’s landslide win in 1984, most Presidential races in recent memory have been won by single digits. As Bush Strategist Matthew Down pointed out, when all you need to win office is 51% of the vote, why spend the money to win with 61%?
This economical approach to campaigning leads candidates to win by ungovernable majorities which, rather than bring the nation together, split us apart. And it's not like Dowd doesn't know what he's talking about. He perfected the practice of micro-targeting for politics - and got George W. Bush elected. Twice.
The partisan campaign starts with an established base of voters, then slowly tries to add to it to reach 51%, adding incrementally to the number of voters as the campaign wears on. By contrast, a post-partisan campaign, like that of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, embraces the center of the political spectrum and establishes itself as the only viable alternative for his own party’s base. It's "put up or shut up" to some extent and while some politicians might think they have the skill and the courage to run such a race, they often take the easier course. Why? Well, it works. Unfortunately it also results in the election of poll-conscious politicians who cater to their parties' extremes instead of attempting to forge workable compromises.
In California, the number of voters choosing not to affiliate with any political party has climbed 50% in the last eight years making it the third largest political group in the State. As more and more Americans abandon political labels and consider themselves members of neither the Republican nor Democratic Party - just as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done - it's possible that a post-partisan approach to politics will become the only winning strategy. And we can finally bridge America’s political divide, where action is valued ahead of posturing.
But that day may be some time away. If Americans don't abandon their partisan affiliations, what looks like positioning for an "independent" bid is more likely to land Michael Bloomberg in the crossfire of American politics than on the front porch of the White House.
Since Democrats took over the U.S. House and Senate last fall, practical political observers - myself included - have suggested that President George Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid take a page from their California counterparts who somehow figured out how to get along and advance a common agenda, despite their partisan differences.
But until last week’s immigration deal was struck, it seemed like our practical advice fell on deaf ears. Washington seemed more intent to be hyper-partisan rather than post-partisan. But that deal - like the compromise on funding for our troops in Iraq - is a sign that Washington is moving to a post-partisan way of doing business.
Although Pelosi and Reid have been slow on the uptake about the balance of powers, there are signs five months into their terms that the two are getting a hang of the process of compromise - even if it is a dirty word in Washington.
Given the start of this Congress, it seemed unlikely that I'd be typing the word "compromise" in any column about Pelosi. She, in particular, seemed to channel the obstinacy of her predecessor Newt Gingrich, focusing on a Democrat's “100 Hour” agenda as the Demcrats swept back into power. After more than 100 days, however, not one bit of the “100 Hour” agenda has become law - threatening to saddle her Congress - the first her party has had since 1995 - as "do-nothing".
And when it came to funding the war in Iraq, the Democrats seemed dug in. Pelosi and Reid complained that the President did not have the constitutional authority to have the funding bill exactly as he wished and that Congress had to have a say. While they were technically correct, the two Democrats, for the moment at least, seemed to forget that Congress wasn't given a carte-blanche in the Constitution either.
The branches of government have to work together if they want to get anything done. And that’s where the lessons from California these past few years would serve our national leadership well.
Last November, voters went to the polls in record numbers to “throw the bums out”, the Republican bums that is. But when all was said and done, one Republican not only survived, he thrived on election day. Although California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's fate seemed sealed with electoral defeats in a 2005 Special Election, he has managed to reach accords on global warming, raising the minimum wage and expanding civil rights with his Democratic-led legislature.
Like Schwarzenegger in 2005, George Bush is not a popular man - in California, in fact, gay marriage is twice as popular as the President - but, thankfully, polling numbers do not effect one’s constitutional powers, including the power to sign or veto legislation. President Bush reminded Congress of that when he rejected their timeline to surrender in Iraq.
What happened next was somewhat surprising. Rather than become more acrimonious with the President - as if that were possible with Senators using Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as a punching bag - Congress started to work with the president. The first evidence of this new political savvy was last week's breakthrough compromise on immigration reform, the first item on a “compromise agenda” I suggested back in November. And yesterday, Congress compromised again on funding for the war.
To make post-partisanship work in Washington, Congress and the President must battle forces within their political parties as they strive to make progress toward breaking down the partisan divide. Democrats must reconcile their desires to give handouts to big labor while placating the pro-immigration forces within their party while Republicans must choose between big business and anti-immigrant bigotry. When it comes to the war in Iraq, Democrats must resist their natural instincts to hand over the keys of the Pentagon to the extremist anti-war elements of their party--a lesson they seem to be learning--and Republicans must realize that they do not have a blank check to fight enemies real and imagined indefinitely.
We will see many more debates similar to the one over the proposed guest-worker program which will test Washington’s willingness to keep the compromise coalition intact.
But as California’s Governor Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez have taught us, good governing doesn’t mean you always get what you want. By relenting on a timetable for Iraq, Congressional Democrats are showing that they may be starting to understand this - just as California Democrats understand that Governor Schwarzenegger won’t approve of any new taxes.
If Washington can weather the immigration storm - and send a bill to the President’s desk this summer - the groundwork will be laid for a new era of post-partisanship which might prove the President, in the end, to be a “uniter, not a divider.” Only if Pelosi and Reid can resist the urge to be confrontational with Bush with theirs be labeled anything but a “do-nothing Congress.”
After two centuries of Presidents delivering the State of the Union to Congress, we've gotten used to hearing a one-word summary. The State of the Union is (fill in the blank).
The words "strong" or "resolute" no longer seem to apply as much as "divided" or "frail" this year, so it is probably best that President Bush held it back until the closing moments in his 2007 address.
But I can report to you here today that the State of the Union is…California!
With a Republican chief executive forced to work with a hostile legislative branch, the Washington is looking a lot like California has over the past three years under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The question remains as to whether we're looking at California in 2004 or the Golden State of 'ought-six.
Like California, the nation is benefiting from a strong economy. Tax receipts to the federal government are coming in ahead of projections, cutting the federal deficit in half. Similar revenue gains have led Governor Schwarzenegger to submit a balanced budget for the first time since the dot-com boom.
Shortly after the November elections, political observers (myself included) suggested that President Bush and Speaker Pelosi look west to California for inspiration on how to play nice in a divided government.
While Speaker Pelosi has yet to follow in the conciliatory footsteps of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez—instead pushing forward with a radically partisan agenda which I doubt will ever become law - it seems President Bush is reading off the cue cards of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election script.
The domestic issues highlighted by President Bush in his 2007 State of the Union reflect a "progressive libertarian" approach to solving issues traditionally considered the domain of Democrats; he's taking a page from Arnold.
Bush wants to use market forces to control greenhouse gas emissions and take healthcare decisions out of the hands of the government and employers and put it in the hands of people and their doctors. By proposing to give subventions to those states pursuing universal health insurance, he's propping up Schwarzenegger's "third way" to universal healthcare as opposed to those in the California legislature who would just want the government to be the single player.
Bush continues to pursue pension and political reforms - something on which both the President and Schwarzenegger have tried and failed over the course of their administrations. Yet the agenda has narrowed to "pork-busting" at the federal level just as Schwarzenegger has lowered his sights from blowing up the boxes with reapportionment reform to rearranging it on the ship-deck, alongside extended term limits.
We don't need to "Amend for Arnold" because we have the new George W. Bush, Presidentnator of the United States.
What will determine whether the State of the Union is California 2004 or the Golden State of '06 is Congressional Democrats' willingness to play along with an unpopular chief executive. If they look at recent California history, they'll see that even their poll numbers can benefit by working across the aisle.
At his inauguration on Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised to push the Golden State beyond the era of partisanship, or even bipartisanship, to a new era of "post partisanship." By taking the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, California's elected leaders could move the State forward, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Californians. Unfortunately when it came to political reform—the Achilles heel of the Schwarzenegger administration—the Governor could only reassert the same, tired proposals.
When Schwarzenegger delivered his State of the State address four days later, he took exactly the approach he promised. The Governor took "good ideas" from Democrats, such as broad healthcare insurance for all Californians and emissions controls at the same time he took ideas from the Republican agenda, such as building more prisons and surface water storage to control flooding and bank water as climate change affects snow levels in the Sierra Nevada.
On its surface, "post-partisanship" is as attractive and impractical. Introducing the notion, Schwarzenegger noted, " The question is not what are the needs of Republicans or Democrats? The real question is what are the needs of our people? We don’t need Republican roads or Democratic roads. We need roads. We don’t need Republican health care or Democratic health care. We need health care. We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air."
It's hard to argue with the fact that California needs leaders whose interests are that of Californians—not their respective political parties. But getting everyone on board is next to impossible, especially with the way California elects its Legislature.
Governor Schwarzenegger has correctly identified the greatest hurdle to facing California's future. Political reform is needed to break the back of the political extremes, who through gerrymandering and closed primaries, have hijacked the State government from the people of California.
Schwarzenegger, however, continues to focus on reapportionment reform as the answer. Redistricting reform has been tried before in California, and as unappealing as the thought of letting our elected officials choose their constituents instead of the other way around, voters have never mustered the courage to turn the process over to an unelected body.
California's partisan divide is exacerbated by the closed primary system forced on the people by the courts. Although voters approved an open primary system, whereby voters could choose their preferred candidate, regardless of party, the political establishment opposed the process and got the courts to agree. As a result, candidates appeal to the few voters who will turn out in a partisan primary, knowing that, without reapportionment, the general election is meaningless.
Instead of chasing these tired, and failed political reforms, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should consider proposing the creation of a "post-partisan" legislature.
That is to say, candidates for the State Senate and State Assembly should run neither as Republicans or Democrats, but as Californians. Voters should pick their candidates—not their parties. Too often, most voters I talk to vote for someone based on the letter after their name—knowing nothing of the candidates or their ideals. That's not good for democracy and it is not good for California.
Californians are already familiar with non-partisan elections. As part of the original progressive movement led by Republican Governor Hiram Johnson, political parties were removed from all local elections. When we go to the ballot to elect a City Councilman or County Supervisor, we're not choosing between Democrat and Republican, we're picking between Jeff Prang or Mike Antonovich.
Look no further than the 2005 race for Mayor of Los Angeles to see the power of a non-partisan election in promoting a discussion of ideas. Although the top five candidates were all Democrats, they distinguished their campaigns with a discussion of public policy. As a result, the winning candidate, Antonio Villaraigosa, took the best ideas for school reform, transportation and more from his opponents and has become a better Mayor as a result.
When Villaraigosa goes to Sacramento for the next Gubernatorial inauguration in 2011, we should have a legislature that looks like California—not fractured between red and blue, but a plush purple reflection of this great Golden State.
Across the nation, voters turned on Republicans in yesterdays elections; from Congress to the State House, voters "threw the bums out," replacing them with anyone with a (D) after their name—with one major exception. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won resoundingly over State Treasurer Phil Angelides.
They say you should be careful what you wish for, and boy do I know that feeling today! Last April, I wrote that, " if the GOP is going to get beat in this election, I hope they get beat good." And a nationwide, Republicans were beat as badly as Democrat Angelides in California.
Many are already asking whether Schwarzenegger could serve as a model for Republican success. His progressive-libertarian approach to politics—combined with bipartisan cooperation with willing leaders across the aisle—changed the course of California history in just twelve months.
Against all my wishes, I doubt that the Republican Party will all of a sudden boldly scoff at the Religious Right, as Schwarzenegger has, or adopt a pro-environment agenda if it will cost business a dime.
But if President Bush and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wish to succeed in the next two years, they would be well-served to take a page from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Speaker Fabian Nunez.
Working together, Nunez and Schwarzenegger were able to do great things this year—fighting global warming, raising the minimum wage, expanding civil rights and more. Likewise, there are a number of areas where Pelosi and Bush can compromise and leave a legacy for the President and extend her speakership beyond one term:
Immigration Reform. The main obstacle between President Bush and reforming immigration policies last year was not the Democratic Party—it was House Republicans running from their shadows in what they thought were heavily-gerrymandered conservative districts. Pelosi could send the McCain-Kennedy compromise to the President's desk in her first 100 hours and few would object.
Healthcare Reform. The last time Congress tried to "fix" the healthcare crisis, we invented HMOs. However, as Schwarzenegger looks to models to provide universal healthcare without raising taxes next year, Bush and Pelosi could follow suit.
Alternative Energy. Bush has been trying to push Energy reform for years—and has been stymied by Democrats who oppose drilling in Alaska. Compromise here could focus on propping up American industries that promote clean energy to help such technologies become viable in the free market.
Minimum Wage. In a trade-off for pro-business tax measures—like extending the tax cuts of 2001—the President has said he will sign off on a raise in the minimum wage. Pelosi should send it to his desk.
"Protecting" Marriage. George Bush's push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is all but dead. However, he can nullify the need for one by signing a Federal Civil Unions bill—which confers the rights of marriage upon same-sex couples without redefining marriage. This would nullify the equal protection argument which "activist judges" have used to rule on. Moreover, voters in Arizona showed that this third-course was one which they prefer when they rejected a ban on gay marriage AND civil unions Tuesday—the first such defeat in the nation.
It may be a pipe-dream to think that any or all of these issues could result in a compromise. Short of compromising with the President, the new Democrat-controlled Congress will quickly regulate itself to "do-nothing status."
To show that they're serious about moving the nation forward, I propose that President Bush and Speaker-elect Pelosi should travel to California, sit down with Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez and ask them how they did it. Now that he has a Democratic Congress, Bush may finally have a chance to be a "uniter, not a divider."
Tan Nguyen never had a chance of being elected to Congress - but for the past week, he's the only candidate the Southern California media can talk about. His race-baiting intimidation letter to Latino voters was either the dumbest or most nefarious political ploy to be pulled in this election cycle.
If you hadn't heard, Nguyen is accused of sending out a letter to voters with Spanish surnames threatening that illegal immigrants who vote could get deported. The Orange County Republican Party decried the letter and asked the candidate to withdraw from the race.
Governor Schwarzenegger and his opponent have both criticized Nguyen - a Vietnamese immigrant himself - but the candidate remains in the race, and in the headlines.
Upset that the GOP and Governor have moved so quickly to decry Ngyuen's stupidities, the Democratic Party is trying to make this incident a bigger issue than it already is. The party's statewide candidates are now claiming that the Republican Party created a hate-filled environment where Nguyen's actions could be considered acceptable.
That is certainly the message Democrats want in voters' minds as nothing else has been able to stick on the California Republican Party this election cycle - not even the stench of George W. Bush. And for as much press as Nguyen's letter is getting in the English-language press, you can imagine what kind of coverage it is getting in the Spanish-language media.
But overlooked in the row over Tan Nguyen's letter is the candidate himself. Until a year ago, he was a Democrat.
In fact, Nguyen was a Democratic candidate in 2004 against Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
I say that Nguyen's letter was either the stupidest or the most nefarious political act this year because part of me wonders whether he's some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Democrats to pull this October stunt - and have it dragged out by the media going into the election. (Of couse, that's Cold War thinking - Vietnam, where Nguyen was born isn't the same as China for all kinds of reasons.)
That would take a lot of plotting and planning and coordination that, normally, I wouldn't give Democrats credit to be able to do. But since they withheld information about Mark Foley for months - if not years - to make his predatory sexual behavior a campaign issue, I wouldn't put anything past them.
Struggling to keep Phil Angelides' campaign for Governor on life support, the candidate and the Democratic Party are digging deep—pulling out campaign tricks which appear to be extra-constitutional and possibly illegal—in hopes of duping voters between now and November.
Now, I know that just one week ago, I wrote, "Angelides is so far behind in public perception of the race that just discussing California’s gubernatorial race is piling on," but some things are just begging for discussion.
Over the weekend, Angelides entrenched himself even further into the one campaign theme he thinks will work—running against George W. Bush, not Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has promised that, if elected, he will pull California's National Guard Troops out of Iraq.
That's one campaign promise that is guaranteed to be broken, since, as noted journalist Bill Bradley points out, "A state governor has no authority over either the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force. He or she is not in the chain of command. California guard members serving with the Army in Iraq are receiving regular U.S. military service medals, the Iraq Campaign Medal, not state awards."
Yet Angelides persists. Why don't we just move the State Captiol to Caracas while we're at it, because the Democratic candidate for Governor of California is starting to sound like Hugo Chavez speaking to the United Nations—attacking "American militarism and capitalism" with this and his proposals to raise tens of billions of dollars in new taxes. And the two seem to hold the U.S. Constitution in equal regard.
Phil Angelides has genuine differences with Governor Schwarzenegger. For example, he wants to raise taxes and regulate businesses while Schwarzenegger does not. Why not run a campaign focused on the issues which will affect Californians in the next four years?
Meanwhile, the State Democratic Party, in an absolutely in-no-way-whatsoever-coordinated move, launched a new "issue ad" this week linking Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush.
As of last Saturday, however, it is illegal to use "soft money" to run television ads for candidates in California under voter-approved Proposition 34. Republicans have cried foul of the new ads which include the URL to the Angelides-laden California Democratic Party website, but as political blogger Robert Salladay points out, the ads fall on the margins of what may be legal since they only attack Governor Schwarzenegger and do not mention the candidate they intend to support..
Whether these campaign promises and political hardball fall within the law or not, I have to wonder, as Angelides struggles to save his campaign, whether it's smart to go hyper-partisan at a time when the fastest-growing group of voters are those who reject either party?
When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hits the "campaign" trail, he's flanked by the State's most powerful Democrats - Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Los Angeles luminaries like Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilwoman Wendy Greuel - his rival, real estate developer Phil Angelides was playing to and empty house in West Hollywood.
That’s the town where I live - and it’s just about the bluest of blue cities in the country. Republican registration is just about 10 percent and no one can remember the last time any Republican was elected to any office from the City.
In the heat of the campaign, Angelides traveled to such friendly territory to throw his Hail-Mary pass - linking Schwarzenegger to the unpopular President George W. Bush. But it was more of a “fail-Mary” pass - barely reaching the line of scrimmage.
As Rolling Stone pointed out, Angelides joint appearance with Senator John Kerry before a "half-empty gym in West Hollywood" was, "just sad."
Well, no “gym" in West Hollywood is ever half-empty - period.
The actual Kerry event, we're told, was held in the West Hollywood Park Auditorium - which regularly draws plenty of local residents to planning commission meetings. Interestingly, the Los Angeles Unified School District banned the Schwarzenegger bill signing from their property because it was a "political event," - one of course, overhauling the school district's administration - so we have to ask why the City of West Hollywood allowed Kerry and Angelides to campaign on our public property.
Actually, what is, "just sad," is Angelides' standing in the latest poll reported by political blogger Robert Salladay.
Democrats are not only not excited about Phil Angelides, many local activists tell me they’re not going to vote for him - under any circumstances whatsoever. It’s starting to feel like the rout is on. Angelides is so far behind in public perception of the race that just discussing California’s gubernatorial race is piling on.
As many of us suspected, the Los Angeles Times got its copy of private conversations between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his staff from the Angelides for Governor Campaign.
Although the newspaper, long suspected particularly by Republicans, of having it out for the Governor after their failure to sink his electoral hopes in 2003, has remained silent about its sources - even in reporting a California Highway Patrol investigation into how they got their information - pressure from Internet bloggers has forced the Angelides camp to speak.
It turned out that the IP (Internet Protocol) address of the computer which accessed the files was attached to a computer at the Angelides for Governor campaign. The campaign then acknowledged that one of its people accessed the files and downloaded the tape of Schwarzenegger’s private conversation. This is the tape that showed up several days later on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
How did this happen? The story traces back to a somewhat different version of the earlier version offered to me by a top Democrat, speaking on background so as not to get anyone in trouble. Here's what he said:
The audio file in question was somehow linked to a public archives file, not of Schwarzenegger speeches, but of a press release. In this scenario, the press release contained a link to Schwarzenegger's remarks on Hurricane Katrina. And that audio file on Hurricane Katrina, in turn, contained links to other audio files, including the private Schwarzenegger conversation. Which was taped not in August, but in March.
All this means that the Angelides campaign somehow found a way to gain access to a private conversation and then got that conversation to the Los Angeles Times, which placed it on its front page.
While that may not classify as illegal hacking, anyone who thinks the tape was accessed by purely legitimate means is naive. This counts as a "political hack" in my book: It is analogous to claiming that the Watergate break-in wouldn’t have been criminal if the doors had been left unlocked.
Schwarzenegger's legal counsel still maintains that the files were ill-gotten. Making things worse for Angelides? The tape hand-off hits the headlines just as Hewlett Packard Corp. is coping with allegations about spying on reporters and its own board members. That heightens the sleaze factor.
Angelides’ camp finally admitted late Tuesday - after published reports had tied their computers to the break-in - that they were the source for the Los Angeles Times. That's the story the L.A. Times should have written. And as long as they don't write that piece, the Angelides folks will be able to keep denying they're accountable for the hack or the hand-off.
Schwarzenegger’s campaign has responded, saying, “The treasurer should denounce the unethical actions taken on his behalf. Phil Angelides has a long history of gutter politics, and it is clear this most recent example was a calculated effort to smear the Governor's reputation…Once again, Phil Angelides and his campaign have demonstrated the treasurer is not ready to lead the state."
What's really is at stake is the would-be-Governor’s ability to manage his staff. If he is unable to control and unwilling to take responsibility for the actions of the people he has chosen for his team, how can we expect Phil Angelides to govern California?
In a front-page exclusive, the Los Angeles Times offers what may be the most damaging evidence in the case against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s re-election: the man behind the curtain is not the one we see on stage. That’s true with most actors—and I suspect, politicians—but I am not convinced that the Governator’s version of the Nixon Tapes won’t work to his advantage.
In the tapes, Schwarzenegger is heard ridiculing the Republican leadership in the State Assembly, saying that the Minority Leader is like a deer in the headlights and suggesting that the only Latina in the Republican caucus is “hot” because of stereotypical traits of people of Cuban or Puerto Rican dissent, we’re not sure.
Stereotypes hurt—and it’s even worse to hear them coming from elected officials. The tapes are sure to create a firestorm of internet venom from the left. But the right is fuming too.
Ultra-conservative blogger Steve Frank comes thisclose to accusing the Schwarzenegger camp of intentionally releasing this tape in an effort to distance himself from the often-wacky right-wing State Assembly Republicans. He asks, “Was the purpose to show his disdain for the Assembly Republicans ("the wild bunch"), to show he was a "real man" in his discussion of a female member of the Assembly?”
My first thought was that, if the release of the tapes was intentional, it was one of the first maladroit moves by the new Steve Schmidt-led team (no relation). But then, I considered the matter further.
Schwarzenegger does not have allies in the Assembly Republican Caucus. They’ll work with him when they agree with him, but when he needs their critical votes in order to strike a compromise on, say, the minimum wage or fighting global warming or passing a budget, they’re as reliable as allies as the French.
Schwarzenegger’s distance from the right-wing crazies of California politics is probably as well-known to Californians are as his disagreements with President Bush...as in not very for most Californians. The revelation of these tapes will educate or reinforce for the general public the perception that Schwarzenegger may have an (R) after his name, but that’s about as far as it goes—he’s a centrist at heart. That can only help him in November.
As far as the ethnic stereotyping is concerned, don’t forget that, although there are a lot of Latinos in California, there are very few Cubans or Puerto Ricans…
Now I don’t know about how relations are between various ethnic groups in Latino communities, but if it’s anything like Western Europeans—where Germans mock the Swiss, who ridicule the Belgians, who make fun of the French, who disdain the Poles, who hate the Hungarians whose word for “German” is derivative of the word “stupid”—then it’s possible that the few Mexican immigrants reading this morning’s Los Angeles Times are saying to themselves, “yeah, he’s got a point.”
The political-correctness brigade which is going into a tizzy over the tapes today, I’d suspect, were not going to vote for Schwarzenegger anyways…so in the end, what was supposed to be a gift to rival Phil Angelides from the Governors “great friends” on Spring Street, may end up as a win, a win, and a draw for the Governator.
Who would have thought that an election with a famous Hollywood action hero seeking the highest office in the nation's most populated State could be a snoozer? However, just days after the respected Rothenberg Report moved California's gubernatorial race to "safe," the Sacramento press corps is doing whatever it can to make the contest between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Treasurer Phil Angelides interesting again.
By the end of the week, it became clear that journalistic standards were less important than subscription sales…and California's political press threw out any pretense of balance in favor of trying to make the phrase "Governor Phil Angelides" seem plausible to anyone but the most die-hard partisan Democrats.
On Wednesday, the Angelides Campaign released it's highly dubious revenue and economic plan.
The press release from Angelides' campaign touted the economic "plan" which claims to, "tax relief for more than 4 million middle class California families."
Practically without blinking an eye, the state's major newspapers regurgitated the press release back to their readers…
Angelides Proposes Tax Cuts, read the Los Angeles Times…
Angelides calls for middle class tax reduction, read the SacBee…
And it took the Mercury News two writers to come up with this one: Angelides Proposes Tax Cuts
Did George Bush get such treatment in 2000? I'd bet a look at the archives would show headlines claiming "Bush Tax Cuts Would Benkrupt Nation"!
Today, the press turned its focus to Governor Schwarzenegger. Apparently, the conservative right is unhappy and may be willing to cost him the election by staying home. Or so the press wishes.
How else would the same story appear in both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times? It's borderline intellectually-dishonest for Michael Finnegan to suggest that Schwarzenegger's "stands on illegal immigration, the state's swelling debt, gay rights and other matters" - all issues where the Governor is reflecting the mainstream political beliefs of Californians - could cost him the election.
Maybe it's summer and the headline writers are on mental vacation, but it sure feels like Angelides has finally found a constituency in California politics which wants him to be competitive in this race: The Sacramento press corps.
Shortly after California’s June 6, 2006 Primary, the State Republican Party began running a pair of ads urging Californians to take the Golden State, “forward, not backwards,” by re-electing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ever since, his lead over rival Phil Angelides has grown from five to eight to thirteen points.
Fellow Democrats are not helping Angelides, either. Garry South, the campaign manager for Angelides former rival, Steve Westly, blogged his honest opinion. “Angelides looks wrong, sounds wrong, is wrongly positioned and is running the wrong kind of campaign.” Democratic infighting could hurt more than any CRP ad.
Meanwhile, the Governor’s re-election team is investing thousands of man-hours organizing a ground game unseen in California since the CREEP back in ’72—recruiting thousands of volunteers for the fall—in June and July.
While it might be tempting to rest easy - given the state of the opposition and take the double-digit lead for granted, Schwarzenegger’s people know that he has failed to crack 50% in any poll. His numbers have held steady at 45% while Angelides' numbers have slipped. Even with the planned mobilization of volunteers, the roadmap to getting that next five percent that would assure a November victory for Arnold is unclear.
At the 30,000 foot level, Schwarzenegger has two basic choices. He can use his celebrity and increasing likeability to support his fellow Republicans running statewide. Or he can campaign with Democrats, like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to promote a package of five infrastructure bonds that will be on the ballot in November.
The reason it’s such a tough choice is that neither are all that popular. Of the infrastructure bonds, only proposition 1B—the transportation bond—has a majority of voters supporting it and the proposed affordable housing bond is losing like a Christian Conservative running for Mayor of San Francisco.
Alternatively, the Republican ticket isn’t doing much better. All down-ballot Republicans are trailing their Democrat opponents and only Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and Insurance Commissioner candidate Steve Poizner are within spitting distance of the other party.
Facing those choices, Arnold does have one option left. He can be his own man and steer his own course. It’s an approach that columnist Jill Stewart says has worked well for him on immigration issues. Until last December when he brought on new staff and reassembled his campaign team, Schwarzenegger too often tried to follow someone else’s path. But since he decided to be his own man, those poll numbers are looking mighty fine and that individualist path - the one that got him elected in the first place - may prove the winning course.
A funny thing happened on the way to the media circus known as California's Gubernatorial race this week: Nothing.
It was supposed to be the week that Democrats went on the attack against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Trailing in just about every poll by double digits and with a Candidate who is less charismatic than your local mortician, Democrats were prepared to throw their Hail-Mary: link Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the unpopular President George Bush.
But the ads never ran, in a lucky stroke for Democrats, because President Bush handed Governor Schwarzenegger an issue on a silver platter…Stem Cell Research.
Just one day after President Bush vetoed his first bill…ever…which would have funded stem cell research on living, human embryos, Governor Schwarzenegger renewed his commitment to the cause announcing a loan from the General Fund of $150 million to the voter-approved California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
As the guys in the Guinness Commercials would say…Brilliant!
Arnold has figured out how to gain the advantage on Phil Angelides six ways at the same time!
First, he's reminding voters that he's no George Bush—taking on the president on a highly controversial issue.
Second, he's siding with a majority of Californians.
What's more, he got Angelides' Democrat primary opponent Steve Westly to issue a press release praising Governor Schwarzenegger.
In doing so, he has neutralized the Angelides' camp only remaining viable strategy.
Furthermore, on the surface, having the Governor issue these loans makes it appear on the surface that the State Treasurer (Phil Angelides) is asleep at the wheel issuing the bonds to support the Stem Cell Institute…even if the facts don't back this up, perception is stronger than reality…
And completing the six-pack, the move allows the State GOP to hold off on its advertising counter-offensive…saving funds for later in the election.
Brilliant!
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger met publicly with a gay and lesbian group for the first time since taking office nearly three years ago, and although they were gay Republicans he spoke to, the real elephant in the room was Gay Marriage. It's widely assumed that Schwarzenegger's veto of marriage equality legislation in 2005 was a slap to the gay community—but what if Arnold in vetoing the bill had a better grasp on how to achieve equal rights than Log Cabin, Equality California or any other groups?
Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, Governor Schwarzenegger said, "Today we need a higher level of understanding, not lower. We need a sense of tolerance that is stronger, not weaker. I pledge to you that I will continue to promote these values as your governor, as your fellow Republican, and as your friend."
And after reminding the crowd that despite their shared values they may disagree—twice—Schwarzenegger pulled a line out of his campaign commercials, stating that we need to move the State forwards, not backwards.
What if, in the context of promoting Marriage Equality, vetoing the bill last September was actually the Governor's attempt to move the issue forward?
Before you tell me that's crazy talk, consider this. Just six years ago, California voters chose overwhelmingly (70% in favor) to recognize out-of-State marriages only if they were between a man and a woman.
Whether Arnold had signed the marriage bill last year, or (god forbid) a Governor Phil Angelides signs similar legislation next year, one thing will be certain—the measure will be sent to the voters in a referendum.
While the gay political establishment has done a good job electing 41 Democrats to the State Assembly who support the cause, little has been done to change the hearts and minds of most Californians…let alone Republicans. You could put your money on such a law being overturned at the ballot box—just like voters rejected Universal Healthcare in 2004.
Just fighting the battle at the polls—let alone suffering a defeat—would be ten big steps backwards for civil rights in California.
On the other hand, Governor Schwarzenegger, in vetoing the marriage bill last fall, said that the issue should be decided by the courts or the voters.
Within the year, the State Supreme Court will assuredly get a case challenging the discrimination in the State's Family Code based on the equal protection provisions in the California Constitution. To overturn such a decision, voters would have to strike the equal protection clause from the State Constitution—which I believe would be a much tougher sell.
Who knows what's really going on inside Governor Schwarzenegger's head when it comes to equal rights for all Californians, but listening to him speak, you get the sense that it's something he struggles with. Sensing that, it's possible to reach the conclusion that, indeed, Arnold knows best.
When Governor Schwarzenegger was swept into office in 2003, he promised to break the gridlock in Sacramento and do what no Governor had done since 1986—pass a budget by the constitutionally-mandated June 15 deadline. But as midnight tolled on Friday, June 16, 2006, partisan gridlock prevailed—but in a reversal of fortunes, this time it was the Republican Assembly Caucus who were standing in the way of their own Republican Governor.
After succeeding in his first year in office at bringing Democrats and Republicans together to clean up the mess left by Governor Gray Davis, Governor Schwarzenegger went a bridge too far in pushing his reform agenda in 2005—alienating public employee unions with plans to reform pension benefits and teacher tenure. That led Democratic activists to turn on him and subsequently Democratic elected officials—to the point that Controller Steve Wetly, whom Arnold once described as his "twin" though he could unseat the Governator.
In years past, the budget battle either pitted minority Republicans against Democratic Governors or Democratic majorities in the Legislature against Republican Governors. The latter happened fifteen of the last twenty years, and the former in five years under Gray Davis. Never in the past two decades have Assembly Republicans blocked a Republican Governor's budget—until now.
Just a month ago, an on-time budget seemed like a slam-dunk for Scwarzenegger. Increased revenues meant he could pay back schools and pay off some of the revenue bonds approved by the voters to pay off Gray Davis' deficits. Democrats liked the plan, as did the Governor—it was his budget after all.
But Republican Assemblymembers—elected from gerrymandered districts reflecting the most conservative 35% of California—somehow couldn't play nice.
The issue that's dividing Arnold and Assembly Republicans? Drumroll please… Immigration!
Specifically, Republican legislators don't want to spend $24 million (out of a $130 billion-plus budget) to give healthcare to undocumented children.
The budget holdup is both mean-spirited and silly.
It's mean-spirited because if the children we're talking about are here illegally—it's not of their own choice. These children should not be punished for the sins of their parents.
It's silly because the money is insignificant in the larger picture. The public relations value for the Governor's campaign from passing a budget on time could be worth at least a million dollars—and tax dollars are easier to come by than campaign cash.
When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger takes the stage Thursday evening for his 2006 State of the State speech, "moderation" will be the recipe the cooks in his political kitchen — but doing so may cause him the same indigestion it caused his predecessor, Gray Davis, three short years ago.
As I stared, blurrily, into 2006 Sunday morning, one word kept going through my head: moderation, moderation, moderation. To New Year's reveler's like myself, "moderation" is as much a dirty word as it is to California Conservatives who would rather stand by their guns than win elections in this state.
As key elements of Schwarzenegger's speech have leaked to the press, a common theme is developing of embracing liberal proposals, but making them more tolerable to his Republican base.
One example of Schwarzenegger's meet-in-the-middle strategy comes in his proposal to raise the minimum wage. Rather than face a two-dollar increase and permanent, automatic hikes in the Minimum Wage, the Governator will propose a one-time dollar increase.
Eating my traditional Saturday bacon breakfast burrito, ez potaoes, at Astro Burger and reading the headline about this announcement, I could overhear two of my West Hollywood neighbors ranting about the Governor: "He's only doing these liberal things so we'll vote for him, then he will go an do everything the right wing wants."
Republican activists are even more incensed. Steve Frank gives the typical reaction: "This is a phony, political answer, that creates more problems than it solves," in his long diatribe on the matter.
In serving heavy doses of moderation during his State of the State speech on Thursday Schwarzenegger risks falling into the same trap as Gray Davis: By trying to make everyone happy, he appeals to no one.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had an Al Gore moment late this week when, with three key personnel moves he declared to extremist elements on both the right and the left of the political spectrum that he is his own man.
When he appointed Court of Appeal Justice Carol A. Corrigan to replace Janice Rogers Brown on the State Supreme Court, he chose a candidate in his own image—a non-idolitarian centrist who values accomplishment over idealism.
While California Republican Assembly head Mike Spence acknowledged that, “alt least she’s a Republican,” party labels don’t matter to the Governor as long as someone is good for the job.
Continue reading "Arnold still looking for "Schwarzenegger Republicans"" »
When you consider the common axiom that you “dance with who brung you”…Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger's appointing Susan Kennedy to be his chief of staff makes nothing but sense.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s regime in Sacramento is diverse, but its members fall generally into three categories:
- Wilson Alumni – We’re not talking about graduates of Princeton’s School of International Affairs here, unfortunately. With such a large number of staffers who had worked under former Governor Pete Wilson hired at the beginning of Schwarzenegger’s Governorship, some critics were calling his election Pete Wilson’s Third Term.
- Political Consultants – The relationship between Governor Schwarzenegger and his political consultants—the most high-profile of which is the Navigator’s Mike Murphy--has been more transparent than in any previous administration, shedding a light on how the political gurus have guided policy; and
- Principled Liberals – There are a number of Democrats and left-of-center people, such as the original Cal EPA head Terry Taminen, who joined the Schwarzenegger Administration because they saw him for what he was—an economically conservative, socially liberal man who wanted to clean up the broken governance structure in California.
Of these three models of Gubernatorial staff, two of them have been abject failures: Those who are more loyal to party or pocketbook than to the man in the horseshoe.
When Governor Schwarzenegger’s poll numbers began to weaken earlier this year, he started talking about illegal immigration…and his numbers began to plummet. It’s not hard to figure out who gave him such advice - Wilson's guys - but unlike 1994, this time, the political climate was and is, very different.
When Governor Schwarzenegger declared 2005 the “Year of Reform,” political consultants—both his and others, began to salivate. Rather than engage in a negotiating, both sides entrenched themselves on the road to a Special Election. In the end, the only people who benefited from the Special Election were the consultants working for Governor Schwarzenegger (Murphy's firm made six figures in consulting fees) and those working against him (McNally Temple, the Democratic advisors, pulled in a half-mil.).
But, in reality, the only model that has served Schwarzenegger well has been to ignore partisan labels and hire the best person for the job among those who are committed to his Reform Agenda. This has served him well in Environmental Policy, in the Corrections Departments, and this is exactly the type of person - a Principled Libearal - that Susan Kennedy is.
When Governor Schwarzenegger announced Kennedy’s appointment, she said, “I believe in what he’s trying to do for the state and where he’s trying to take California…This is not about being against Democrats. This is about being for change.”
I don’t know about you, but ever since he decided to run for office, that’s what I thought Governor Schwarzenegger was all about.
The base of the Republican Party made the same mistake as California’s gay community in assessing the Governor. Because he agreed with them on some issues—economics in the case of the former, partnership rights in the case of the latter—they projected their world view on the man rather than listen to what he was actually saying.
And when, in the end, Arnold revealed himself to be the person that he said he was all along, they got equally enraged. If you’ve actually paid attention to Governor Schwarzenegger—and put down the blinders of activist groups or the mainstream media—it is hard to get upset with him over his choice of an experienced administrator who believes in his cause to be his Chief of Staff.
