Posted on 09/04/2004 9:21:07 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
The monthlong bill-signing period is upon us, and the question for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger remains: How much and from whom will he accept campaign cash while considering hundreds of bills left on his desk by the Legislature?
Spokesman Rob Stutzman said the governor will not accept money into his re-election pot (which has a $21,200-per-donor limit) during September.
Political adviser Marty Wilson said the governor will accept checks in unlimited amounts in his ballot measure committees, which will fuel his involvement in Nov. 2 election matters.
Indeed, Univision Chairman Jerry Perenchio dropped a quarter-million-dollar check into Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team account Sept. 1, the first day of the bill-signing extravaganza.
Predecessor Gray Davis was regularly skewered by the GOP in the 2003 recall and his 2002 re-election campaigns for his refusal to turn off the contribution spigot during bill-signing season.
Not unlike legislators' drill of holding end-of-session fund-raisers amid the crush of business, the bill-signing fund-raising practice is seen by campaign finance reformers as especially questionable, because interests with pending measures are more motivated than ever - and the politicians know it.
......
But Arizona Sen. John McCain, backer of landmark federal campaign reform laws, said fellow Republican Schwarzenegger should think twice. "I don't approve," McCain said of Schwarzenegger's practice of taking large contributions. "As the United States Supreme Court said, money in politics not only is the appearance of corruption but also corruption. My advice to him is that campaign finance reform would be a good thing for California."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Things change, Things stay the same.
Some Burton comments and also how did Code Pink get folks into the RNC event the night the President spoke, check it out at the end of the buzz article.
Government for sale!
The concern shown by the Sacramento Bee when a Republican governor holds office, is a beautiful thing to behold. Too bad they can't concern themselves with similar issues when a Democrat burns through a $6.5 billion dollar surplus to run up a $30 billion dollar deficit in five years.
Then our side snaps to attention and buys into the Sacramento Bee's new-found concerns. LOL, what a motly crew we have.
Why do we allow the Sacramento Bee to lead us around by the nose. I'm not saying this issue isn't important, but we didn't take Davis to task as much as we do Schwarzenegger on these issue. It's really rather comical how shallow some are.
Spending is rising faster than it did under Davis, 6.5% instead of an average of 6%, with one major difference: Schwarzenegger got rid of the constitutional prohibition on borrowing to cover operating expenses as part of Prop 58.
He owns this mess now, and so do you.
It's really rather comical how shallow some are.
Wow, and I was under the impression we had kicked Davis out of office for this. My mistake.
Carry_Okie, you have marginalized yourself into absolute absurdity. Your own narrow-minded fanatacism has you actually supporting the tactics of the Sacramento Bee.
Schwarzenegger came to office with a $30 billion dollar deficit and just months away from $10 billion dollars in notes that were due. To this you think he should have cut $40 billion from the current budget or submit to your wrath.
You state that he legitimized borrowing to support the deficit. That is a bald-faced lie and you know it. The state had run a budget defict financed by bonds, some of them illegal for the prior 24 months. How do you think the state kept financially solvent with a $24 billion deficit in July of 2003?
Your attempt to say this is all Schwarzenegger's fault makes you look like a fool.
What exactly did you expect Schwarzenegger to do when he came to office with a $30 billion dollar deficit and $10 billion in notes about to come due? Tell us.
Well the answer was not "make it worse" that is for sure.
What a cop out. Tell me what your pefact plan was. After ten months of carping, I'd like to know. How did you plan for him to balance the budget immediately without the state defaulting on it's financial responsibilities?
Your second personal attack in two posts. Typical.
Schwarzenegger came to office with a $30 billion dollar deficit and just months away from $10 billion dollars in notes that were due. To this you think he should have cut $40 billion from the current budget or submit to your wrath.
Were that the only criterion, I would not be citing his removal of the constitutional protection from borrowing while selling it as "cutting up the credit cards" in Prop 58. It is not that he chose to cover the debt that I criticized; it's that he made it legal to rack up much more.
That's a misdirection on your part: choosing to respond with data irrelevant to what I posted. Also typical.
You state that he legitimized borrowing to support the deficit. That is a bald-faced lie and you know it.
Of course it is, because it is not what I said. For the third time (just so that you get it through your thick skull), I said he permanantly removed the protection from borrowing rather than making it the one time deal that he sold in Prop 58. Schwarzenegger is the liar and you are abetting it.
California could have had a $30 billion confrontation with reality that might have foreced it to cut spending. Instead, Arnold just papered it over and went on like nothing happened hoping revenues would rise enough to cover it. So far, it doesn't look like a good bet.
Once again you denying the truth in order to place all the blame on Schwarzenegger.
Were we $24 billion in debt on in July of 2003, or weren't we.
If we were, then you're comments to the contrary, we were already running budget deficits before Schwarzenegger ever took office. Therefore it would be impossible for him to have facilitated them.
I'm waiting...
It wasn't a cop out. I don't have all the answers, notice I did not run for office. But Arnold did. Near as I can tell Arnold has not lived up to his promises. Not once.
How did you plan for him to balance the budget immediately without the state defaulting on it's financial responsibilities?
I think Carry is right. I think he papered over the problem and made things worse in the process.
Word of advice, not that you asked for one, Carry is a very smart man who has some great stuff that would help the party. I would suggest you stop fighting him, start listening to what he has to say and start using what he has to offer. If you want the party to be a success in CA, if you actually want to accomplish something worth while for the party, then you need to start working with those who can help.
Look, I appreciate the comments. I do think Carry has many positive and productive qualities. There's no arguement there. It's just that after about a year of listening to you guys, I'm finally ready to say, "Put up or shut the ---- up!"
If you, Carry or I took office and there was a $30 billion dollar deficit with around $9 billion in notes coming due, we'd have to scramble too. It's real easy to sit here and damn Schwarzenegger becuase the budget isn't balnced yet. Every one of us knows you guys feel that way, but watching you jump in on every thread to declare Schwarzenegger a this or that is annoying to say the least.
If you or Carry have a solution to balancing the debt right now without defaulting on state obligations, please tell the members of the forum about it. I'll join you and praise you for the solution.
Otherwise, please give it a rest. Damn Schwarzenegger when he does something wrong, and quit this inceasant trashing of him for little or nothing he can do anything about.
I know your hearts are in the right place, but geeze guys.
I never said anything about him balancing the budget. You brought it up. I gripe because he gave power over to the prison guard union. I gripe because he pushed the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. I gripe because he is still trying to give licenses to illegals, I don't care whether they are different colors or not it's unconstitutional period.
My main gripe is with the party leadership. I've seen too many elections where they went against the rank and file just to prove they know better than the average Joe. That is an elitist attitude worthy of the Dems and I don't want it in my party. I'm tired of reading articles like the latest in the Bee talking about how they should have given money to the guy running against Parra but didn't because he was conservative. I want a party who believes in ideals and works towards them. Instead I see a party who cares more about what letter follows the name than what policy is pushed. We could accomplish so much but the goals seem to be lost along the way.
For what it is worth, I see the same problems in the Grange. It seems to be a microcosm for state politics. I see factions fighting for control while the organization crumbles around them. The same thing is happening to the state.
That is what Carry and I are fighting. We are trying to wake up those who could help. Electability is not the end all yet that seems to be the bottom line for the party. The soviets put party above everything. Hitler and Sadam were elected after all but I wouldn't want their policies. Would you? So Arnold was elected, stop watching his back and start pushing him to do what is right. Are you with us, the rank and file, or are you with the party leadership who doesn't seem to give a rats behind?
I never said anything about him balancing the budget. You brought it up. I gripe because he gave power over to the prison guard union. I gripe because he pushed the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. I gripe because he is still trying to give licenses to illegals, I don't care whether they are different colors or not it's unconstitutional period.
Your first comment on this thread was "government for sale". In your second comment you mentioned "...that's why we threw Davis out of office."
I disagreed with you on the first point, beause this is the Sacramento Bee raising the issue of big donations, when big donations were never a problem for the Bee when it was Davis collecting them. I asked why we should follow their lead on that. As for why Davis got kicked out of office, the budget deficit was the precise reason. It wasn't because of large donations. He'd been getting large donations from the get go. The state re-elected him despite them. They booted him due to the size of the budget deficit finally being revealed after the election.
My main gripe is with the party leadership.
You and I have no difference of opinion on that. I too am disgusted by the party leadership. That's how we got Schwarzenegger to begin with. I still refrain from blaming him though. It's not his fault that the state Republican party leadership and guys like Drier encouraged him to run. It's only natural for him to run. I disagree with his policies, but who brought us those policies? He didn't force them on the state party. They went looking for him.
I've seen too many elections where they went against the rank and file just to prove they know better than the average Joe.
Well my thought on it is that they think they know better than the rank and file. The truth is, they are have no connection to conservatism. Conservatism is defensible on merit. They betray conservatism to defend the indefensible, socialist policy in a liberal package.
That is an elitist attitude worthy of the Dems and I don't want it in my party. I'm tired of reading articles like the latest in the Bee talking about how they should have given money to the guy running against Parra but didn't because he was conservative. I want a party who believes in ideals and works towards them. Instead I see a party who cares more about what letter follows the name than what policy is pushed. We could accomplish so much but the goals seem to be lost along the way.
Essentially you're saying here what I said above. I fully agree with you.
For what it is worth, I see the same problems in the Grange. It seems to be a microcosm for state politics. I see factions fighting for control while the organization crumbles around them. The same thing is happening to the state.
I don't know much about the Grange, so I'll take your word for it. I imagine you're correct. The state political mindset probably creeps in, and you get the same results.
That is what Carry and I are fighting.
And in that I agree with you both. Still, when it comes to these threads, you just tee off on Schwarzenegger like he brought this party down. Guy, it was the long term liberal, off message idiots like state party leaders and nut-jobs like Drier that brought this party down. Schwarzenegger is Schwarzenegger. He doesn't know any better. The fooseballs at the top should. Drier should.
We are trying to wake up those who could help.
I've got no problem with that either. Still, you have to have something the guy did wrong before coming and making comments like "state for sale" etc. Schwarzenegger gets big donations. Okay, do you want the Republican Party to forgo donations altogether? Like it or not, Schwarzenegger either pulls in big donations or surrenders to the democrats. Do you want him to drive policy, or do you think the California Legislature is the best bet? Don't let the Bee drag you around by the nose.
Electability is not the end all yet that seems to be the bottom line for the party.
No it's not, but on election day we have a choice to make. Do we want to vote for a person that may win, or do we want to vote for someone who won't, ushering in a guy like Bustamante?
The soviets put party above everything. Hitler and Sadam were elected after all but I wouldn't want their policies. Would you?
Guy, I know you are only mentioning these names to make a point, but mentioning them in conjunction with Schwarzenegger to make a point is just nuts. Schwarzenegger is not who you want in there, but these two examples are so far over the top that it's just sickening to read. We agree on many policy issues and the fact that the party leadership has no connection to conservatism at all. Taking that out on Schwarzenegger all the time even when he has done nothing wrong, is just plane overkill. It doesn't win people to your side. It allienates folks who agree with you for the most part. Can't you see that?
So Arnold was elected, stop watching his back and start pushing him to do what is right. Are you with us, the rank and file, or are you with the party leadership who doesn't seem to give a rats behind?
I will stop watching his back when unfair charges stop being leveled against him. You could have had an ally from the start. I told you that, but you guys decided that you were going to enter every thread about Schwarzenegger from day one and hurl the most nonsensical charges his way. Instead of me being able to support McClintock, I wound up defending Schwarzenegger. You have made one of the most collossal politcal errors I have ever seen. You absolutely drive people from your side. I've tried to connect with you folks on this issue for around a year now, to no avail.
If you want me to join you in urging Schwarzenegger to do the right thing, then attack policy and not him.
You don't know that he's going to sign the High Sierra conservancy bill. He hasn't said he would. You just assumed he would and the trash starting being hurled. That is no way to win support.
If you wish my support, ask me to fight the bad bill. I'll be glad to. I will not participate in endless threads calling Schwarzenegger names just becuase you think he might sign the bill.
Can't you see a difference?
Get off this 'I hate Schwarzenegger kick" and I'll join you more often than not. When he does something wrong, I'll even join you in trashing him for it.
I simply will not join you guys as you trash him for things he hasn't done, or for things like this that the Bee never cared about until a Republican held office. It's like the issue of the homeless, it doesnt' exist until a Republican is President. If you can understand that concept, then you can understand what the Bee led you into here.
You will find me on very few pre-election threads. It has only been since April and my fight over the conservancy that you will find me pounding Arnold and only then because I got all this crap about how Arnold was God's gift to Government and McClintock lost. I did exactly what you say I should, I tried to get people on this forum to fight this bad bill and all I got was crap about trashing the Governor and refusal to help, blaming me for things I did not do!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.