Posted on 08/29/2005 3:19:39 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Memo to Arnold: Don't take the conservative base for granted.
The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, started out the program today with Hugh Hewitt, and in addition to the slate of proposition on reform the Governator wants to pass, lots of issues the base out here cares about were brought up. Here's how that interview went:
HH: We kick today off with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has thrown the California political map into a complete tumult with a special election coming up in November. Governor, good to talk to you.
AS: Hello, how are you, Hugh? This is great to talk to you.
HH: Thank you. It's always good to have you on, Governor. Before we go to the initiatives, and we've got to get through each of them, let me ask you. Your neighboring governors, Governor Napolitano, Governor Richardson, have declared border states of emergency in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. Is that grandstanding?
AS: Well, I think that they have different issues than we have. They have real emergencies on the borders, they have livestock being killed, they have human trafficking, they have drug trafficking, and they have also the same problem we have, which is the flow of illegal immigrants coming in. But they have...I just recently came from a border Governor's conference in Mexico, and all of the Governors got together that are on the borders, and we talked about that. And we came up with a resolution about all working together to create more security on the border, and protect the borders and all that. So it's been a major issue, but they have an even bigger problem than we have.
HH: All right. Now I want to go on to the initiatives, because you made a roll of the dice here, and you've thrown California's political calculus, and thus, the country's, into a little bit of upheaval, especially with Prop. 77. I'm not sold on redistricting, Governor. Tell me why I should vote for this.
AS: Well, I think that what is important is that the last time we did redistricting, it was the politicians that drew the district lines. And when politicians draw district lines, that means that they are drawing it in a way that protects themselves. It protects the incumbent. So what they have done is they've built this little castle, and to protect themselves, not let anyone else go in, and not creating competition. And in order...instead of protecting the people, the voters, they've protected themselves. It was all about them, rather than about the voters, about the people out there that need to be protected. And so when I was elected, I said that I will be a Governor that will be the people's Governor, and I want to protect the people, not the politicians. So it is important that we redo that, and it is a panel of retired judges that have no vested interest in the outcome. They should draw the district lines so that it is fair, and is competetive between Democrats and Republicans. Because what they have done when they drew the district line is they have picked the voters. And that is the wrong way to go, because it has to be the voters that pick the politicians, not the politicians picking the voters.
HH: Now Governor, I know a lot of retired judges, and some of them are quite sweet, but there are many I wouldn't let change the oil in my car, much less my Congressional districts. How do we know we're not going to get bums?
AS: Well, because they will be selected, and it will be a good and fair selection and all that. I think that this is very important that we have...the question always is...with everything is, do you want to continue the old system? Do you want to keep the status quo? Do you really want to have the politicians draw the district lines that is in favor of them, rather than in favor of the voters? That's really what the issue is here. And I always said that I want to reform the system, and I want to make sure that the people are represented the proper way, because the people are working hard out there, it's the people that are paying the taxes, that live by the rules and all this. And they should really be fairly represented so that there is a competetive district, so that Democrats and Republicans can compete and go out there and campaign, rather than fixing the system the way it is right now.
HH: All right, Governor. Let's turn to public school teachers. Yesterday, we did a story on the Canton Timken Public High School in Canton, Ohio, which had sixty five pregnant high school girls out of a total of 490 girls. That school's obviously broken down. What's got you taking aim at the public school teacher's tenure?
AS: Well, I think that we always said that there is a huge problem we have in education. We are spending this time, I mean this year, we increased education spending by $3 billion dollars. It's the hugest increase. We are spending $50 billion dollars altogether in education. It's the most that we have ever spent in the history of California. And we are not getting what we are supposed to get. You know, the system has to be reformed, but at the same time, we need to make sure that we don't tackle all of the problems at the same time, and do it one at a time. The first thing I said is let's start with the teachers. It is unfair that after two years, teachers have lifetime guarantees for their jobs, and if they're good or bad, they stay in there. You can't get rid of bad teachers. And you cannot reward good teachers with bonuses, or recognition pay, which I have proposed. All of those things are just wrong the way it is done right now. So what I propose in my teacher's tenure is, let's increase that after not two years you get the lifetime guarantee for your job, but after five years. Let the teachers prove themselves, because there are so many talented and so many hardworking teachers out there. And they should get rewarded. But the ones that are not making it, we should be able to get rid of them, and I think we should do the weeding out early on.
HH: Now Prop. 76, the companion initiative, goes after state spending, and part of that is school funding. Are you proposing to cut school funding?
AS: No, no. We never want to cut anything. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. We want to increase funding for education, because as you know, I'm an education Governor. I want to make sure that education gets a fair amount of money, but we have to also show accountability. People want to see accountability, that the money is spent wisely, and more that 65% go into the classroom. That's what we are shooting for. What is happening right now is the money does not go into the classroom. It doesn't go towards the teachers. It goes to many other things, and administrative costs. So we want to clean house there. We want to make sure that the parents get their moneys worth, because they are paying the taxes. And we want to make sure that the children get the best education possible. So teachers tenure is the thing to start, and then we're going to continue on and expand and create real reform in education. But the important thing is we have to increase education spending, pay as much attention to education as possible, and really treat the teachers the right way, with respect, and give them a merit pay, and increase their pay.
HH: Now, there are a whole bunch of other initiatives on here that you did not put on, but I'd like your opinion on two of them. Prop. 73, which is a waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. Will you vote for Prop. 73, Governor?
AS: Well, to be honest with you, I'm right now focuses only on our propositions. So we stay focused, so I don't go all over the place here, and talk about many initiatives, all of the initiatives. So this is why we always get involved with the other initiatives down the line. So maybe in October, we'll get involved with the other initiatives. But right now, it is important for us to talk about teachers tenure, to talk about living in our means, Proposition 76, and Proposition 77, which is the redistricting. And may I remind you, the key thing here is that when you talk about living within our means, is that the state stops spending more money than we take in. What created this huge mess, and why we had the recall election, was simply because our legislators could not keep control over their spending. They rung up a $22 billion dollar debt. That's what I have inherited. And they still today did not get the message. They're still spending more money than we have. This coming year, our structural defecit will be an additional $7.5 billion dollars. We cannot continue this way. And I simple reason why this is bad is that not only because we are not living within our means, but we never save enough money to really build an infrastructure, to work on our highways and freeways. We cannot afford all of these things. We need to build more schools. We need to build hospitals, emergency rooms. We need to create more nurses, more teachers. There's so many challenges ahead of us. If we continue always living in debt, we cannot afford what we need...
HH: That's absolutely true, but can you expect conservatives to get up and march, and you need them to march on this stuff, if you're not out there for say paycheck protection? I mean, that one's...that's the nuclear weapon that's been unleashed here. If the unions lose their stolen money from their people, they're going to be crippled. So are you going to be out there for Prop. 75?
AS: Well, again, like I said earlier, I'm not getting off...in principle, I'm for all of those things, but we are not going to get involved in endorsing any of the other initiatives. What is important is that we're using November 8th as the time for all of California to rally together and go to the polls and to vote, and to create real change. Because the legislators are incapable to create real reform in California, which we need so badly, in order to fix the broken system. I always promised the people that when I come into office, I will fix the broken system.
HH: Will you be appointing the new Justice on the California Supreme Court before the election?
AS: I don't think it will be before the election, but I mean...
HH: Are conservatives going to be happy, Governor?
AS: We are right now going through the process, and it is, as you know, it's always very important that we appoint the right person, the most competent person, the person that really has skills and experience.
HH: But it's got to be a conservative. I mean, Janice Rogers Brown was the most conservative member of that court, and if you come in with a moderate, aren't the conservatives going to sit on their hands for you, Governor, next year?
AS: You can count on it that we will do the right...we will pick the right choice, and that we will do the right replacement.
End of interview.
Ping
The liberal Republican Govinator of California. LOL
Yes, it's a real walk in the park on the California border. What a stupid justification.
Schwarzenegger has clearly been corked by his advisors again. After praising the Minutemen and catching a little hell for it, he's back to mouthing vague banalities any time someone brings up the border.
"AS: You can count on it that we will do the right...we will pick the right choice, and that we will do the right replacement."
I guess this means conservative.
Hewitt didn't seem convinced. Here was his take:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/08/21-week/index.php#a000130
Gov. Arnold was a guest on the program today. You can read a transcript of the enitre interview over at Radioblogger, but the key exchange, in my view, came at the end of the conversation. The confirmation of Janice Roger Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has created a vacancy on the California Supreme Court. Brown was the most conservative member of California's highest court, and though she often was obliged to dissent, she was a voice for serious scholarship from the right side of the legal spectrum in a state inceasingly overwhelmed at every level by left and hard left thinking.
Her replacement matters a lot to center-right conservatives, and Arnold's choice will be a huge deal to the center-right troops whom he will need in the fall of '06 if he declares for re-election.
It would be the smartest, and easiest thing in the world to nominate former Congressman, state legislator and judge James Rogan, who's up from the streets life story is inspiring to all people who know it.
It will be a disaster if Arnold picks a "centrist" or a time-serving state or federal judge.
If the Los Angeles Times is happy with the appointment, Arnold will have stumbled. Badly.
Conservatives have little to show for their support of Arnold to date. Things would have been worse under Davis, yes, but the blowback might have been enoguh to trigger statewide realignment. This is the opportunity Arnold needs to use to say "thanks" to his supporters on the right while at the same time doing the courts a favor by keeping alive a vibrant strain of legal reasoning, which though in the minority at present, represents a significant slice of California thinking.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
If Hew Hewitless is a conservative, I'll eat my hat!!! In order to be a consistent, considerate conservative, one must be anchored in the founder's philosophy of anchored constitutionalism grown out of a Judeao/Christian belief system. Otherwise, what the heck is one trying to conserve, if it ain't America's most exceptional traditions, customs and CULTURE!!!
The rest of the danged world is only worth short visits, by comparison... Let's be honest about it!!!
Agreed. Hugh lost any claim to conservatism when he began backing Richard "Gun-Roundup" Riordan for governor.
There was a time when a thread like this would have the Arnie-bots swarming all over it like wasps on a rotting piece of meat on a sunny day. What happened to them?
This interview had all the earmarks of "questions submitted in advance". I agree with your observation, "RINO on RINO interview". Where were the follow-ups? Where were the pointed questions?
Where were the questions about increasing debt and no cuts?
Hewitt was one of those saying that we had to elect Arnold because Arnold would help get Bush elected. He was also pushing Bill Simon to endorse Darrell Issa for governor as early as July 2003. To me, he always appeared to be shilling for Arnold and Pete Wilson (and very inconsistent when it comes to conservatism).
I never listen to him but I remember looking at his background back during the recall. This is from a prior post:
"Hugh Hewitt, legal counsel to the Building Industry Association Endangered Species Committee" (1991)
"Irvine attorney Hugh Hewitt, who represents many large Southern California land interests" (1992)
"Gov. Wilson appointment of Irvine attorney Hugh Hewitt to the board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (1995)"
...."Hugh Hewitt, an attorney and co-host of "Life and Times" on KCET-TV, was appointed to the board by Gov. Pete Wilson in May 1995, pending Senate confirmation. But the Senate rules committee voted 3-2 Monday not to confirm Hewitt's appointment. "His record is more pro-industry, at the expense of air quality," said Sandy Harrison, press secretary for committee chairman Sen. Bill Lockyer, D-Hayward. Lockyer also felt that Hewitt was not an air-quality specialist, as called for in state law, and that he had potential conflicts of interest because of his many business clients."(1996)
He admits we're not getting the bang for the buck, but still thinks increasing funding is swell. No, forcing a product for what we already pay out, in fact a lot less than we currently pay out, is what is called for.
It's also very irritating to realize that the only reason we don't have enough schools, is because the illegal immigrant populace is mushrooming out of control. Still he states, we don't have an illegal immigrant crisis like the other states do.
He wants more hospitals, but can't figure out that the reason the ones we have are closing, is due to unfunded mandates by the state and federal government.
This guy hasn't a clue what a conservative is, but assures us he'll pick one for his judicial nominee.
Then, to top it off, someone doing their best impression of Pluto gives him a gift interview.
What will this accomplish? People heard this interview. They heard that there was nothing in it of substance. The interviewer and the governor rope-a-doped through it. The only person raising a sweat was the listener realizing what's not even in these two people's play book.
Ugly!
Many of them are inactive or from other states. I pinged a few that seem to still be around with my original ping.
Too bad folks didn't use Arnold's criteria for selecting a governor. From this interview:
AS: "...it's always very important that we appoint the right person, the most competent person, the person that really has skills and experience. "
I hear ya, D1. Good recap. I've always considered Hewitt a long-time
shill (see post above), so I wouldn't expect much else.
He also backs/backed Villiarosa for Mayor of L.A.
let me add: !!!!
Can we use this in a court of law? This is a confession!
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.