Skip to comments.Schwarzenegger banking on star power
Posted on 02/05/2005 10:52:19 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may deride critics as ``girlie men,'' ``stooges'' and ``losers.'' But California's celebrity governor says it's all in good fun, a way to inject a healthy dose of Hollywood into the dreary world of politics and ensure that no one views him as a ``boring'' politician.
``That's what gets you headlines,'' Schwarzenegger told the Mercury News editorial board Friday. ``This is what makes people pay attention to you. This is not to be offending anyone. This is not belittling to anyone. I mean, I have respect for all those guys, even if they have a different opinion.''
Democrats on the pointed end of his barbs might disagree. But Schwarzenegger is gearing up to use his star power for a seminal ballot battle to remake California government, a vision he outlined for editors and reporters during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview.
Schwarzenegger suggested that the governor -- not the elected state schools chief -- should oversee education, encouraged advocates of higher taxes to take their case to the voters this fall, and defended his plans to raise $50 million to promote his agenda.
New campaign finance rules restrict the governor from raising six- and seven-figure donations as he did last year.
``Every two minutes there's a new rule. We will live by that rule. We are very, very strict about that,'' Schwarzenegger said. ``Now, is it the spirit? When you talk about spirit, that's a matter of opinion. The key thing here is to operate within the law.
``I have no influence on the committee,'' he added, ``but I will help them with fundraising, and I will help them to endorse it and to do TV campaigns, because it is according to my agenda.''
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may deride critics as ``girlie men,'' ``stooges'' and ``losers.'' But California's celebrity governor says it's all in good fun....
A noble effort from the ultra-leftist San Jose Mercury. Arnie does mean it...and the libs just cannot stand being handled like the limp-wristed whiners that they are. Arnie says it like it is...and they just whine like little wimps.
I don't call him Arnie, I call him Schwartzie- If you know slang German and English, mix them up in a teacup. Schwartzen is what Germans called black Americans roaming around their countryside after WW2:) It was an endearing term. Now we have a big white guy called Schwartzeneggar (black nig. in dirty German). Call him Schwartzie for fun! A white schwartzie:)
Wrong. His name translates as "dark-headed plowman."
In High German, of course it does. I reserve the right to have fun with his name with street slang. After WW2, my mom met her first black guy. He was with my dad. My dad said she wanted to see if the color comes off, so she kept touching his skin and looking. Very Funny to those guys. Then they went to Fort Benning, GA.:) Germany was very isolated from other ethnic areas for a long time. Women of all sorts never fail to get along, from wherever.
Well .. Arnold needs to stop thinking about HIMSELF and thinking more about doing what's right for California - and not what makes points for HIM.
Always remember he was raised by a socialist nazi and married a Dem. What do you expect.
Do you or anyone else know who introduced Arnold's "merit pay" legislation or the number of the bill?
I'm interested in reading it now, given that the article implies Arnold wants to put more power at the state level. I thought he and Riordan had previously been touting that we need more local control of education.
I'll see if I can find it.
Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
I'm not referring to anything the School Superintendent said. I was looking at the quotes from Arnold. This was sarcasm? I don't see it.
And what adversaries are you referring to or "true import" of his message? I don't understand your comment.
From the article:
Schwarzenegger suggested that the governor -- not the elected state schools chief -- should oversee education, encouraged advocates of higher taxes to take their case to the voters this fall, and defended his plans to raise $50 million to promote his agenda.Thank you for referring back to the article. I had not noticed that it said "no immediate plans" before, so I probably won't find it in the proposed legislation at this time. It looks like it will be buried in the CPR "reforms" yet to come.
On Friday, the governor called for smaller, more efficient schools, and said the education system is not working because no one is accountable at the highest levels of state government. Schools get mixed signals, he said, from the schools superintendent, the governor's office and Schwarzenegger's education secretary.
"The problem is from the top. Who really is charge?" he said. "I think the governor should be in charge of education."
Schwarzenegger said he had no immediate plans to act on his suggestion. But the proposal is similar to a recommendation in his top-to-bottom review of state government that would give the governor's education secretary more authority over schools.
An OMNI-bus bill for sure.
Voters dumb enough to think legislation should be crafted and passed this way don't understand the separation of powers.
Thanks. I may have found it by process of elimination, but I'm not sure. This was from the Contra Costa Times, Jan 28, 2005:
Governor offers Dems olive branch
By Dion Nissenbaum and Ann E. Marimow
The jab prompted some Democrats to argue, incorrectly, that the governor hadn't even introduced his bills. The administration quickly dispatched aides to drop off copies of a half dozen measures for reporters Wednesday afternoon.
But, after seeing television coverage after his speech that failed to mention the bills, Schwarzenegger said he felt compelled to "set the record straight."
The first two proposals were given to lawmakers Jan. 6, the second pair a week later and a fifth was presented Thursday, giving lawmakers little time to consider substantive changes to California government.
In looking through LegInfo, below are the five I think they are referring to. The dates match up, and they are all Constitutional Amendments which would all need to go to the voter, right? That may be why Arnold wants to bypass the legislature; he can ensure his language is included on the ballot vs. a compromised version.
Introduced 01/06/2005 - ACAX1 1 - Richman - * Public employee defined contribution plan
Introduced 01/06/2005 - ACAX1 2 - Daucher - * School districts: annual financial reports
Introduced 01/13/2005 - ACAX1 3 - McCarthy - * Elections: reapportionment
Introduced 01/13/2005 - SCAX1 1 - George Runner - * School districts: employment decisions
Introduced 01/20/2005 - ACAX1 4 - Keene - * State finances
There's a deeper meaning in that, right?
Why do you always challenge me like this? LOL.
Actually, before Arnold's bills were introduced, McClintock introduced a couple regarding the budget process and spending that are better, in my opinion.
Introduced 01/13/2005 - SCAX1 2 - McClintock - * Budget process.
Introduced 01/13/2005 - SCAX1 3 - McClintock - * State Finances: Budget Act.
Arnold's spending bill provides for pro-rata reductions to budget items in the event spending exceeds revenues. McClintock proposed that the Governor use his veto pen to reduce the budget when that same situation arose. Targeted reductions sound better to me than more auto-pilot spending formulas.
In addition to pro-rata spending reductions in Arnold's proposal, that same bill provides for the cumulative internal borrowing from Education, Transportation, etc. not be paid back over a 3 year period as current law would allow (ref the deals that were cut in last years budget promising 'more money later' that the Dems are screaming he reneged on). Instead, it deletes that part of the law and pushes cumulative borrowing (about $10 billion) over a 15 year pay-back period (i.e. more debt for the state hidden in the text of 'spending control' legislation).
Just my guess, but I don't believe that McClintock would support putting us in more debt. LOL.
Read the fine print. The devil is in the details. Compare McClintock's simple approach to Keene's bill with all of the hidden borrowing. (ACAX1 4 - Keene - * State finances - Introduced 01/20/2005)
Not to a figurehead without the guts to wield his pen.
I don't think he'll go that route though. My guess is that it will pop up as part of the budget negotiations, probably as a trailer bill.
Hopefully we don't change the constitution to accommodate those without the fortitude to do the job.
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.