Posted on 01/13/2006 4:35:43 PM PST by FairOpinion
A recent poll shows the born-again "moderate" Republican governor has gained back some popularity, especially in the Bay Area, and is now in a dead heat with Democratic competitors.
"Our survey demonstrates that Schwarzenegger's retreat from the more conservative rhetoric and agenda he brandished during the latter part of 2005 has paid off among middle-of-the road voters," said Melinda Jackson, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.
The governor's job performance rating among voters in a Democrat-leaning state has climbed from 36 percent positive and 53 percent negative in September, to 40 percent positive and 51 percent negative this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidebayarea.com ...
They can talk about how he vetoed SB 60 all they want but they can not deny he then worked on getting SB 1160 passed.
So, you really want proof about Arnold working with Cedillo on a bill giving driver licenses to illegals?
Well, if the audio file above wasn't enough, how about one of Gil Cedillo's Senate web pages?
Sorry about the formatting on this one. For some reason the Cedillo's State Senate page won't let me view the HTML source code, but I'm sure you'll get the idea... that is, if you've got the guts to read it and publicly admit that you've been full of crap.
http://democrats.senate.ca.gov/templates/SDCTemplate.asp?a=3180&z=112&cp=NewsArticle&pg=article&fpg=sennews&sln=Cedillo&sdn=22
Governor Schwarzenegger's Comments on "Marked Licenses"
June 24, 2005
Edward Headington
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is insisting that if driver’s licenses are issued to illegal immigrants, the cards must specify that they are not lawful California residents . . . The issue has arisen as a major stumbling block in behind-the-scenes negotiations over legislation unveiled Tuesday by Sen. Gil Cedillo . . . ”
Jim Sanders
Sacramento Bee
June 2, 2004
“If they cannot satisfy all of the security requirements, the next best thing would be to have a different type of a driver’s license so we can identify that this is only for driving legally, and not to be used for anything else – airports, checking accounts – all of those things that we usually use our driver’s license for. One way or the other, we will do it, and that’s why we are negotiating. I’m very optimistic that it will be done, and it’s just a matter of time.” – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Dan Smith
Sacramento Bee
June 6, 2004
“Schwarzenegger said he already has found a problem in the bill: It does not require a symbol on the license that would identify its licensee as an illegal immigrant.”
Editorial
Salinas Californian
June 9, 2004
“Unless all his security concerns are satisfied, the governor has suggested placing a mark on licenses that would identify holders as illegal immigrants.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
June 13, 2004
“Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, asked the author of the bill, Sen. Gil Cedillo, to consider Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s suggestion to add an identifying mark to the licenses of illegal immigrants.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
June 16, 2004
“The main sticking point has been some kind of a marker indicating that the license holder is not a legal resident—which supporters of the bill call a scarlet letter.”
Laura Counts
Oakland Tribune
July 6, 2004
“Schwarzenegger had prodded caucus members in his successful push to repeal a driver’s license bill signed last year by Gov. Gray Davis during the campaign. The governor then invited lawmakers to submit a bill with tougher requirements. But he maintains SB 1160 does not contain adequate provisions for verifying an applicant’s identity. Schwarzenegger has suggested such licenses include a mark identifying the bearer as an illegal immigrant …”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
July 29, 2004
“Despite its (the driver’s license bill) myriad protections, so far Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refuses to endorse it. According to a spokeswoman for the administration, the governor has not yet abandoned the notion that something needs to be on the driver’s license itself that identifies the holder as a foreign citizen and possibly even undocumented. Cedillo strenuously objects and with good reason. Such a mark would make the immigrant a target either for deportation and or exploitation.”
Editorial
Sacramento Bee
August 6, 2004
“Despite its (the driver’s license bill) myriad protections, so far Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refuses to endorse it. According to a spokeswoman for the administration, the governor has not yet abandoned the notion that something needs to be on the driver’s license itself that identifies the holder as a foreign citizen and possibly even undocumented. Cedillo strenuously objects and with good reason. Such a mark would make the immigrant a target either for deportation and or exploitation.”
Editorial
Merced Sun-Star
August 6, 2004
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger so far has refused to endorse it (the driver’s license bill). According to a spokeswoman for the administration, the governor has not abandoned the idea but believes there needs to be a mark on the driver’s license identifying the holder as a foreign citizen and possibly even undocumented.”
Kristin Bender
Oakland Tribune
August 10, 2004
“At the same time, the governor said he will continue to insist that any driver’s license state lawmakers vote to extend to undocumented workers be different from licenses issued to citizens—in part because of his concerns that the state cannot trust the legitimacy of Mexican identification cards that would be used to verify applicants identities.”
Margaret Talev
Sacramento Bee
August 11, 2004
“Thompson said Schwarzenegger is talking with Cedillo about the issue: ‘The responsible thing is to look at all the options, and that includes having a distinguishing mark or characteristic on the license,’ (Margita) Thompson said.”
Jennifer M. Fitzenberger and Vanessa Colon
Fresno Bee
August 12, 2004
“The governor objects to the (driver’s license) bill, saying the licenses for illegal immigrants must be marked to be different from other licenses for security reasons.”
Andrew LaMar
San Jose Mercury News
August 12, 2004
“‘All along the goal has been to provide a document to allow this community to drive,’ Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said. ‘National security is his No. 1 concern. The way to address those concerns is to have a distinguishing mark.’”
Jim Miller
Riverside Press-Enterprise
August 13, 2004
“But the (driver’s license bill) measure is stalled in legislative limbo after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wants the licenses have a mark that shows the holder is an undocumented immigrant.”
Claudia S. Melendez
Salinas Californian
August 16, 2004
“Last week, Cedillo sidelined the (driver’s license) bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee, believing that a deal with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was near. But the two deadlocked when Schwarzenegger requested that an identifying mark be placed on licenses issued to illegal immigrants. . . . Schwarzenegger has said the marks are necessary so that law enforcement officials can identify illegal immigrants quickly.”
Edward Sifuentes
North County Times
August 19, 2004
“Governor wants a ‘marker’ for illegal immigrants; foes call it unacceptable.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
August 19, 2004
“Schwarzenegger has indicated he’ll veto it unless the license ‘looks different’ from other licenses for security reasons – an amendment supporters of the bill call a discriminatory ‘marker’ that’s unacceptable.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
August 19, 2004
“Latino legislators say Schwarzenegger promised them he would sign a license bill; the governor maintains the bill does not address his security concerns. The Republican governor also maintains he never assured Cedillo – as the Los Angeles Democrat insists – that licenses for illegal immigrants would look the same as licenses for legal residents.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
August 19, 2004
“Other members of the Legislature’s 24-member Democratic Latino Caucus – including Speaker Fabian Nunez – said Schwarzenegger personally assured them he would sign a license bill. ‘The governor, without question, led me to believe that we were going to have a driver’s license bill this year,’ said Nunez, D-Los Angeles. The speaker said the governor did not inject the proposal for “a marker’ into the negotiations until this spring, after consulting with Ron Iden, his director of homeland security.”
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
August 19, 2004
“Schwarzenegger denies ‘a driver’s license that looks different is a ‘marker’ or discriminatory. ‘It’s nothing to do with the mark or the Jewish star or any of that,’ the governor said during his prison tour. ‘It has to do with one thing. That is to make it different so it’s acceptable to the California people and it is also just for driving legally and not for anything else.’” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Aurelio Rojas
Sacramento Bee
August 19, 2004
“Cedillo has been trying to negotiate a compromise with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the deal seems to be stalled because of the Republican governor’s insistence on some indication on the license that the driver is in the county illegally.”
Steve Lawrence
Associated Press
August 22, 2004
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is willing to give people . . . a driver’s license if they agree to one thing: the license must somehow indicate they are in the country illegally.”
Martin Espinoza and Derek J. Moore
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
August 22, 2004
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger argues that illegal immigrants should be issued specially marked licenses in order to reduce the chances that the licenses might be used by unscrupulous people – including terrorists – to get other types of documents. While sensitive to the governor’s concerns, his proposal means a contribution of the status quo.”
Editorial
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
August 24, 2004
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to veto the bill if it does not include a requirement that places a visible marker on any driver’s license for an illegal immigrant, indicating the carrier is not a citizen.”
Martin Espinoza
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
August 25, 2004
“The governor opposes the bill, by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, saying licenses for illegal immigrants should contain some kind of distinguishing mark.”
Chuck Squatriglia
Oakland Tribune
August 27, 2004
“Minutes after the Assembly action, Schwarzenegger said through a spokeswoman that he will reject the bill, AB 2895, primarily because it does not require a prominent mark to distinguish the license from the document issued to citizens or legal residents. ‘He will veto the measure because the license will not have a distinguishable mark,’ Margita Thompson said. ‘National security is paramount and we don’t have enough confidence in the source documents that the people are who they say they are.’”
Michael Gardner
Copley News Service
August 28, 2004
“Schwarzenegger and Democrats had spent the entire session talking about a palatable compromise on the politically charged topic. But negotiations proved fruitless as the two sides could not agree on whether there should be a visible symbol on licenses identifying the holder as a noncitizen.”
Jordan Rau
Los Angeles Times
August 28, 2004
“Schwarzenegger’s alternative of a special mark on the licenses was rebuffed by Latino lawmakers, who said it would encourage discrimination and mistreatment, and was akin to the yellow Stars the Nazis made Jews wear.”
Jordan Rau
Los Angeles Times
August 28, 2004
“‘The only option is to have a distinguishing characteristic to make sure a license can’t be used as identification but can be used as a document to drive,’ said Margita Thompson, the governor’s press secretary. ‘And therefore the governor can’t support this legislation, because national security is of paramount concern.’”
Jordan Rau
Los Angeles Times
August 28, 2004
“She (Margita Thompson) added the governor also wanted licenses for illegal immigrants to be distinguishable from standard driver’s licenses, a provision not included in the legislation passed by state lawmakers.”
Spencer Swartz
Reuters
August 28, 2004
“A Schwarzenegger representative said the governor would veto the bill, because the licenses would not have a mark distinguishing them from standard licenses, something Schwarzenegger wanted for security reasons.”
Kate Folmar and Ann E. Marimow
San Jose Mercury News
August 28, 2004
“Schwarzenegger said he was open to a replacement measure. But negotiations collapsed this summer over the Republican governor’s insistence that the licenses bear a mark . . .”
Jim Miller
Riverside Press-Enterprise
August 28, 2004
“‘The way it was passed it has no distinguishing characteristic and the governor has been consistent, saying the No. 1 issue we have to worry about is national security.’” – Margita Thompson
Jim Wasserman
Associated Press
August 29, 2004
“A day after the Senate approved the measure, a spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would scuttle the bill because it did not require a notation on the license identifying the holder as an illegal immigrant. ‘This legislation does not address his security concerns,’ said spokeswoman Margita Thompson.”
Monte Morin
Los Angeles Times
August 29, 2004
"The only way I can see it happening is if they (advocates for the bill) accept a driver's license that has a different color," Schwarzenegger told journalists after addressing California convention delegates, adding, "If all they want is to drive legally, why object to a different color?" and "It has to be a document that can't be used for other purposes."
Dan Walters
Sacramento Bee
September 3, 2004
“The FBI and our Homeland Security Office has a problem, to give them driver’s licenses that look the same as ours, where they can open up bank accounts, go through airports, and do business and get other documents,” he told reporters.
“Therefore, I suggested to do a driver’s license that looks different . . . so it’s acceptable to the California people and it is also just for driving legally, and not for anything else.”
LA Weekly
Howard Blume
September 10-16, 2004
"Determining the true identity and history of an individual is a key component of that protection," Schwarzenegger had said he would veto the bill if it didn't mandate placing a special mark on the licenses. "If there is a marker on it, I will sign it. If there is no marker on it, I will not sign it."
Michael Gardner
San Diego News Tribune
September 23, 2004
Schwarzenegger said: "And this is what I've offered, you know, Sen. Cedillo. I said, 'Look, we have to put a marker on it, we have to give the undocumented immigrants a license that is just a permit to drive, not a document that you can use in a bank and go through airports and do all the things that normally you do with a driver's license.'
William Finn Bennett
North County Times
May 20, 2005
Ummm... I think they're "working on it", huh?
LMAO!!! Course we know that 68 Grunt will scroll right passed it.
ROFL. I was talking about Arnold and Cedillo's team working on the legislation.... but your point is valid, too.
CPGOP... ROFL!
>>Course we know that 68 Grunt will scroll right passed it.
...scrolling... and scrolling... and scrolling........
It must be the books I just picked up, one on Gramsci and the other on the history of the Frankfurt School.
It's high time I learned more about the enemy.
::sigh::
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's all the fault of conservatives. You Arnoldbots are the ones who keep whining that only "moderates" can win because Dems outnumber Republicans by such a large margin in CA. When are going to apply your OWN rules and figure out that you would have lost the "special election" even if 100% of the "Republican base" turned out? REPUBLICANS ARE A MINORITY IN CALIFORNIA. THE DEMS "BASE" OUTNUMBERS YOUR "BASE" BY HUGE MARGINS -- YOU CANNOT WIN A "SPECIAL ELECTION" JUST BY GETTING THE "REPUBLICAN VOTE" out.
Now if Arnold had not wasted billions on a "special election" and worked to get crossover votes from conservative Democrats and independants during a REGULAR election -- THEN he might have won. That's ALSO how "unelectable" conservative Republicans were elected Governor in heavily Dem states like Rhode Island and Arkansas. I shouldn't waste my breath though, becuase you Arnoldbots just blindly vote "R", regardless of idelogy, and think it works that way with the rest of the state, too.
Gotta love the irony of FairOpinion constantly berating people on this board for "voting with the Democrats" and "enacting the Democrat's agenda" on Prop. 76, 77, and 78... all while DEFENDING Arnold tooth and nail when HE sided with the Dems on Props 54, 68, and 71
But it's OKAY when YOUR guy does it, eh FairOpinion?
Keep repeating your lies, oh ye, true Believers and Supporters of the CA Democrat Party and Other 'Aligned' groups".
The gig is up.
They didn't hold their noses. Pete Wilson supported Prop 187 and 209, for example. You don't like him and because you aren't a conservative.
Pete Wilson came out FRONT AND CENTER on Prop 187 (stopping freebies and benefits to illegal immigrants). Prop 187 WON by majority vote. Prop 187 cost Pete Wilson. And it cost him because of people like you. So, tell me.
How'd you vote on 187: With Pete Wilson or against Prop 187 -- or did you NOT vote on it and simply becaue Pete Wilson Supported It?
Your post is right. But some posters in this thread aren't here to see either a Conservative and Republican elected to any office in CA. Their posting history will and does reveal that.
Wrong. And because you aren't a conservative, so how would you know. You don't know.
Deliberate misinformation you are posting. Davis brought in and encouraged UN language to be inserted into CA bills. For one example. So please keep on telling anyone interested in CA issues in FR, your lies.
You are standing as exposed as Ted Kennedy in the Alito Hearings.
I gotta hand you credit for trying to actually post common sense to people who aren't in this forum for that reason or purpose. Their MO is classic Democrat playbook, bootstrapping and citing "conservatism" to addle folks with no history-knowledge of what these folks say and post.
Anyone with any desire to learn about YOUR insults, need merely check out your posting profile with regard to your insults delivered to posters in the CA threads. Then, they'll see the game you are playing, here.
What are you suggesting... that classic Dem canard that he "groped" her?
If your friend wasn't clued in before and during Total Recall, she wasn't really "inside" was she. So she made a "political statement" reactionism just like all good little Democrats - a "protest" issue.
Bingo. And of course all CA Freepers who think this "group" is actually consisting of conservatives have not really been paying attention.
The CA Freepers constitute, last I looked, officially = 2000+.
I think there's a reason most CA threads have only the "so-called" conservatives posting to each other: The threads are so small in posting count.
I think a number have been subjected to the "group's" classic abusive posting strategies, and refuse to talk about CA issues, thereby leaving the discourse, which should be civil, to those who aren't civil -- these so-called "conservatives" who'd rather see a Democrat in office than a conservative and/or a Republican.
In this thread, their hypocrisies and lies have been identified. Dittos, on other threads.
I've been in other state threads. Differences in opinion do not go on like they do here in the CA threads. There's something else going on with this "group", and they aren't coming clean about it.
The group counts upon "lurkers" assuming this group represents some kind of official "CA Freeper" ideology or line of thinking. The group does not.
As diverse as CA is, it is natural to assume, nay -- project that these threads based on CA issues should contain a huge diversity of opinions.
But as evidence continues to show, only the "correct" version -- that proferred by a group which is obviously not conservative -- is permitted, and no official moderation is involved. Most do not post on these threads and because of the ugliness constantly and routinely delivered in post by those claiming to be conservative -- to anyone with any difference in thought from the group's "lockstep" opinions.
CA has got an election coming up. It is wrong to continue to allow this "group" to hijack discussions. But the group is clever. I'll give them that. But just so clever, they continue to expose themselves.
They expose themselves when given plenty of room to clap each other on the back, and they are exposed when CA posters post their thoughts in difference to the "group's."
I don't know what the answer is to resolving this matter.
But I see it begun. :) And this is good.
A CA Guy votes Republican.
Yours to him:Since you like to vote communist, why are you here?
Your thinking is that voting Republican equals voting for communism.
Since conservatism is carried within the Republican Party, obviously, by linear extension you also think conservatism is communism.
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.