Posted on 11/03/2004 9:29:28 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's failure to make a dent in the Democrats' big majorities in the California Legislature, despite extensive campaigning for Republicans in key districts, could make it tougher for him to enact his agenda.
"By and large, I think it's clear that the Democrats in the Legislature have nothing to fear from the governor and they can deal with him as equals, as we did this year," Senate President Pro Tem John Burton said Wednesday.
"That club is not there," he added, referring to the threat that Democrats in marginal districts could lose their seats if they didn't go along with the Republican governor.
Fending off tough Republican challenges in eight swing districts, Democrats kept 48 of 80 Assembly seats and 25 of 40 Senate seats - the same numbers they have now.
Schwarzenegger made campaign appearances for all eight of those GOP contenders but failed to sway voters.
"It's clear that the coattails are not there," said Burton, a San Francisco Democrat who will be termed out of the Legislature at the end of the month. "He said, 'Send me people to get my program through,' and (voters) said, 'No, we'll send you people to get our program through.'"
Schwarzenegger said he was successful because Democrats didn't gain any more seats. Republicans tend to lose seats in presidential election years, he added, although Republicans picked up Assembly seats in 1960, 1964, 1968, 1980 and broke even in 1992.
"That's why I'm very happy that our campaign was successful, very happy we kept the Republican seats, the amount," he said. "The big fear that everyone had (was) 'Uh, oh, another presidential year and we're going to lose seats.' So I said that I would help them (so) that would not happen."
He said he campaigned for Republicans, not against Democrats.
"This is not my style," he added. "I didn't go out and say anything nasty about anyone. I never even mentioned their names."
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said Democrats would support Schwarzenegger "on issues that are popular with voters ... issues that our members agree with."
"There is no question that Californians approve of the governor," he said. "They support his work, and they think he is doing a good job. But one message I think they also sent yesterday is they don't want the Legislature to be a rubber stamp of the governor."
Nunez said Democratic candidates helped themselves by focusing on "kitchen table issues" that most voters embrace - raising the minimum wage, stopping the offshoring of jobs, reducing prescription drug prices and protecting the environment and consumer rights.
"We ran against the governor in all of these legislative races," Nunez said. "Make no mistake about it, the governor played a vital role. He was in mailers, he was on the phone, he made multiple appearances for different Republican candidates and they didn't win. They didn't pick up any more seats."
He said he wanted to sit down with Schwarzenegger and try to negotiate deals that would lower prescription prices, authorize driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and keep emergency rooms open.
"We will continue to work with the governor, as we always have," Nunez said. "Are we going to capitulate to the governor? I don't think we have ever capitulated to the governor."
That's not true at all! John and Ken interviewed the billionaire...
Fair enough. I know the guy you mean, and I know he pumped his own money into alot of ads. OTOH, the mega-rich guy who wanted his kid out of jail also spent alot pushing it through.
Let's say this: even with ALL the former governors of the state and a bunch of D.A's and other public officials speaking out against it, and even with a bunch of ads it was still looking to pass from the polls. Indeed, it was being reported as passing until nearly the end of the counting of the votes.
Notice that neither you nor I can remember that guy's name, though he bought alot of ads, (among the ocean of other ads), but it was Ahnold who spoke out against it at a bazillion events and on talk-radio interviews etc, stuff that was sound-bited on the news. And a 70% approval rated governator vehemently speaking out, in the news, saying stuff like "don't let dese criminals indo you' homes!!!" makes a far, far more effective message than all the rest of those ads.
So I agree that "single-handedly" is on the surface a ridiculous choice of words. But I stand behind the point that I think Ahnold was crucial in pushing this down, and that more importantly, and against the original point in the article, people will remember that he "saved" us from making a bad choice on this one. Id est, his power is anything but declining as a result of the election.
Taking a bite out of crime....
What ya wearing under the trenchcoat, Gub?
On second thought, Never mind. ;-)
NO! We shouldn't. But that's completely beside the point. The point of the quoted article is that Ahnold is now an impotent governor, because he spoke out in favor of some candidates who lost. I refute the main claim of the article. Come on, guys-- if you look, I haven't said a single thing about whether I even like the guy or not.
"BTW, he didn't "win" the Open Primary proposition that he endorsed... thank goodness"
You're right-- I forgot about that one; I think most people decided to forget about it as soon as they heard about it. Although I'm not sure our situation could possibly be worse...
"Mr. Tough-on-Crime...That makes him, on average, 50 times more lenient than Davis."
Again, beside the point, and I'm not claiming I want him as president. !
I will say that I like him a heck of alot more than Davis!
Agreed, and California is different in that we dug a real hole here, so when I discuss the problems with this state and how to repair them, I have used terms like "STEPS"/"ELIGIBILITY".
The problem with some conservatives in California is that they always cut off their political legs and then wonder why they can't run.
You can't elect a flaming right winger in California today. Tomorrow is another day where maybe that is possible.
I myself would be to the right of Reagan, but I speak on California threads in terms of realities, not only hopes and pipe-dreams.
None of what I am saying is about defeatism, it's that we need to grow the voters back to where they could vote regular conservatives into offices. That requires lots of smaller victories around the steps, and won't get down by screaming what a rabid conservative you are and beating your chest.
What do the Republicans miss the most? It's what Arnold has, a big public personality that is likable.
We have conservatives like Mc Clintock, but they are door mats past their little pond. Nobody likes him and it's the same problem with others.
We just turned an uncontested Senate seat to Boxer. I still can't tell you who the hell Jones who was running against her was, he never ran one commercial. F him and F the party for being and looking that weak to our combatants.
To defeat Boxer, the party only had to move the vote by just over 10%.
Former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marín may have beaten Boxer with a fight and money, Jones never.
The State did not spend that money, stupid Californians did and it doesn't become a bigger CA deficit in the CA budget, it becomes bonds financed by our own self imposed property tax and rent raises.
All so we can watch stem cell research create cancers. Such a deal.
If you say children, health or 9-11, you can just about pass anything in CA with those words in the proposition.
IMO, Marin was an airhead and would have been eaten alive.
Just another weak GOP candidate.
Only because the party leadership won't allow it. It has nothing to do with the votes. Conservative agenda keeps winning.
it's that we need to grow the voters back to where they could vote regular conservatives into offices.
And just where is your evidence that Arnold has helped this at all. There have been no gains, not even small ones.
What do the Republicans miss the most? It's what Arnold has, a big public personality that is likable.
And policy that is more left than Davis plus higher bills. Taking this state farther to the left is not good and is not even your much touted "small step" in the "right" direction.
We just turned an uncontested Senate seat to Boxer.
The party leadership torpedoed that from the start simply because the electorate did not buy into the same left leaning "R" you claim was the only electable candidate. This has been proven on this forum many times but still you spout this crap.
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”— Ronald Reagan, 1965
Oh that was a great quote. Too bad some people still don't get it.
Why? Compare the record. We are worse off.
I just found that quote today when reading an article about
why open primaries are bad. It's still a good read:
http://www.cppf.us/PFrndlyFiles/Columns/061604WSPF.html
Riordan Rides Again
The ‘No More Reagans’ Initiative
by William E. Saracino
Posted: June 16, 2004
William E. Saracino is a member of California Political Review’s editorial board.
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
— Ronald Reagan, 1965
A small cabal of millionaire Republicans, tired of losing GOP primaries because they are out of step with GOP voters, has decided to change the rules. They are bankrolling a November ballot proposition that would force California to adopt the election system used by that paragon of civic virtue: Louisiana.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, former Assemblyman Brooks Firestone, and the usual suspects from the “new majority” plutocracy want California to adopt the system that produced Klansman David Duke as one of two final choices for Louisiana governor. Sounds crazy, but there is method to their madness.
The wannabe oligarchs’ system has all candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot for all voters in the “first” (primary) election. The top two vote getters for each office, regardless of party, would then advance to a “run-off” (general) election. The predictable result: urban voters would see November elections with two Democrats as their only choices, while elsewhere in the state voters would find two Republicans as their only choices. The plan effectively guarantees that third party candidates would never again appear on a general election ballot.
Initiative supporters want to bypass unfavorable internal GOP arithmetic. Most Republicans are conservative, so conservatives win most Republican primaries. Therefore most Republican office holders are conservative. To achieve their goal — eviscerating the conservative GOP base — these nabobs must elect more Republicans who talk and vote like Democrats. To do this, they must do away with primaries in which Republican voters choose their own standard bearers. Voila: the Louisiana system, allowing Jane Fonda, Cruz Bustamante, and Susan Sarandon a voice in reshaping the Republican Party.
This plan is fatally flawed in many ways. But Republicans serious about their Party’s future can focus on just one: had it been in place in 1966, Ronald Reagan would never have become governor, and, of course, would never have become president.
The political forbearers of today’s moderates tried mightily to defeat Reagan in ’66, something they now conveniently forget. In Brooks Firestone’s case his literal forbearer — father Leonard — followed up his 1964 exertions against Barry Goldwater with a 1966 primary effort warning the GOP that dangerous, intolerant extremists were attempting to take over the party. Care to guess who Leonard Firestone and his fellow ’60s moderates had in mind?
Happily for America and the world, Republicans rejected the scare tactics and ideological pabulum to launch Reagan’s career. But a Louisiana primary system in effect in 1966 would have brought far different results. San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, Reagan’s primary opponent, would have moved heaven and earth to win Democrat votes with a plea to help derail the wild-eyed radical Reagan. Big labor, already furious with the former union (Screen Actors Guild) president’s “anti-labor” positions, would have trooped their voters to the polls for Christopher to punish Reagan. The November election most likely would have been George Christopher vs. Pat Brown, and Ronald Reagan would never have been heard of again.
This scheme, too late to stop Ronald Reagan, takes direct aim at future Reagans and all conservatives of principal. Truth-in-advertising should dictate that this measure be labeled the “no more Reagans” initiative. That is precisely what it is.
Reagan’s words from 1965 ring true today. Republicans need no more candidates pursuing the same goals as their opposition. Turning their Party over to opponents of its platform makes no sense. The “no more Reagans” initiative repudiates Ronald Reagan’s legacy. Republicans who value that legacy might remember one of its most potent slogans: win this one for the Gipper.
That is your opinion, that supposed airhead was
* The Treasurer of the United states 2001/2003.
* Another woman to take on a woman.
* A latina.
* Graduated Harvard
Maybe you should run.
Farmfriend, I would consider you part of the problem.
It isn't that the GOP wouldn't allow it, it's that they are unelectable at this time and you don't get it yet.
Wake up, look at the people you are trying to get a majority vote from and then tell me how you figure to pull your grand plan off? You can't and are dreaming.
Tomorrow in a not so distant future, a strong conservative might be able to get elected, but you need to build a base first to support a voting majority.
She graduated from Cal State LA.
She went to an executive program at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Great, so where is your new Reagan?
Mc Clintock almost imploded, so who's your next soldier?
This state is far further left than when Reagan said that.
Until we can remove lots of the Democrat California State Legislature, we are screwed.
We should put this article about Arnold not having much influence aside the other articles about him having a lot of influence, swaying the vote to a win on 14 out of 17 of the propositions on the ballot. Those Dems in those races were just too entrenched - but things are looking up in CA, thanks to Arnold. I suspect even the blue parts of the state will be affected by the red dominance of the rest of the US.
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.