"Maybe because he only mentioned the initiatives he sponsored. Seems simple enough to me."
"As opposed to the one he just endorsed at the Republican convention?
No."
He endorsed it. I don't see why it inevitably follows that he must mention it every time that he pushes the initiatives that are actually part of his agenda, and I don't see why he should be criticized for failing to do so. It's a cheap form of criticism to castigate someone for not mentioning something when they mention several other things.
"Further, Arnold didn't sponsor the current redistricting proposal; Ted Costa did. Arnold proposed a competing measure, struck out, and then took over Costa's."
That is correct. So?
My point is that his support for paycheck protection has been consistently inconsistent. The omission is therefore duly noted.
Apparently you haven't noticed that "his agenda" depends upon what Arnold thinks the audience he is facing wants to hear.