Posted on 05/06/2006 8:10:07 PM PDT by Amerigomag
More good news for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the wake of Friday’s early morning passage of the $37.3 billion infrastructure bonds package, now set for California’s November ballot. He is getting major credit from Democrats for his role in making the deal happen. And major Democrats will be campaigning with him Monday on a flyaround tour of the state for the measure.
Joining the former action superstar, according to multiple sources in both parties, on his jet will be Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, along with the Republican legislative leaders, Senator Dick Ackerman and Assemblyman George Plescia. There may be more, it’s not a small plane. And look for other Democrats to turn up at the stops. Since this is the biggest plan for building for California’s future since the era of legendary Democratic Governor Pat Brown, that is a name you will hear often.
There have been sharp questions in many quarters, including here, about what Schwarzenegger did to make this happen. Although the highlight of his State of the State address, this version of the plan was put together during more than a month of negotiations between the “Fab Four” legislative leaders, with the governor seeming to follow along from a distance. Most of the sessions, according to informed sources, took place in Perata’s office. Those that did not took place in Nunez’s office. (Perata got the ball rolling last year with a major infrastructure proposal. Nunez keyed the insertion of spending on educational facilities.)
Perata called yesterday afternoon to discuss the deal and the governor’s role in it. He says Schwarzenegger played a key role in making it happen.
“The governor,” the Senate Democratic leader says, “was very engaged at the end. He played a big role in getting Republican votes.”
Perata and others described a series of private meetings between Schwarzenegger and Republican legislators to get the bonds over the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each house.
“He pushed hard and effectively,” says Perata of Schwarzenegger’s involvement in the end game. Schwarzenegger was not the only one pushing on his behalf in some of those meetings with Republican legislators, both in “the horseshoe” (the Governor’s Office) and elsewhere. Schwarzenegger campaign manager Steve Schmidt weighed in as well. Schmidt, a protege of Karl Rove, has a somewhat intimidating reputation in Republican circles from his role in George W. Bush’s re-election war room and in shepherding Republican Supreme Court nominees through confirmation.
With evident amusement, Perata recounted what a Republican legislator told him of one Schwarzenegger/Schmidt private session with their fellow partisans. “The governor laid out the stakes, very directly.” And Schmidt? “He talked but he mostly sat there and stared. He wasn’t like Tom Hagen, Michael Corleone’s consigliere (referring to The Godfather’s “reasonable” mob honcho, played by Robert Duvall). He was like Frank Nitti. (Al Capone’s "enforcer.")”
Perata first proposed a major infrastructure package, in the $10 billion range, last year. But the idea was quickly sidelined by the harsh partisan politics of the former Mr. Universe’s disastrous “Year of Reform” special election agenda. After the collapse of the Arnold-driven negotiations in March, things looked bleak for a time. But Nunez, Perata, and the Republicans decided to take up Schwarzenegger on what had then seemed like an unhelpful suggestion, that they negotiate among themselves.
“It was very different this time,” says Perata. “Legislators are always deferential with Arnold because of who he is,” he explains, “in many ways it was easier for us working separately with him monitoring. That’s an appropriate role for a chief executive.”
“The deal points were already there” from the end of the earlier round. The legislative leaders realized toward the end of the March round of negotiations that the package had to be focused on core elements. “Our work,” says Perata, “centered on methodically going through each point in detail.”
Although there was friction during the March round of negotiations, Perata says of this successful round: “Fabian and I were like bookends.” He also praises Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman, who many sources say joined with Perata in a very effective bipartisan legislative team.
“Fabian and I got the Proposition 42 people (advocates of spending the gas tax only on transportation projects) and CTA (California Teachers Association) together on a compromise,” says Perata. That was necessary to head off a ballot measure about to be filed that would have blocked using that money for any other purpose in perpetuity. The compromise allows borrowing from those funds during times of budgetary crisis, but on a much more limited basis.
That set the stage from the Democratic side. From the Republican side, a sense of collegiality that had grown between the legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger’s late direct intervention in the process were the keys.
“This is a huge statement about California’s future,” says the happy Senate chief. “I think the public is ready and waiting for this.”
I believe you're right with the Firestone, Riordon, Wilson, Sundheim croud in charge of the Party!!! The "leadership" of the party has been usurped and needs to be burped!!!
We already did. His name is Arnold (aka The Great Do-Nothing).
Your man Arnold is already on record favoring what has to be the most unjustified massive borrow & spend boondoggle (or should that be "bonddoggles"?) ever conceived. He has said he will sign it.
He can put away his pen. It ain't gonna pass.
By all means keep flacking for him, though.
After all, it's what those of you who use the FO account are paid to do.
It must be getting very lonely for you, FO, over there in the amen corner.
There are significant differences between Angelides?Westly and Arnold. Arnold helped CA become more business friendly and helped the CA economy. Arnold tried to reduce the power of unions, correct the gerrymandered districts AND control spending with his special election proposisions, which the CA voters defeated. Don't blame Arnold for what the Dem Legislature and the voters did.
===
WESTLY:
In the “Stand” spot, Westly says, “I’m Steve Westly – before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m strongly pro-choice and I believe protecting our environment is fundamental. As governor, I’ll make education my top priority.” Then the announcer adds, “Steve Westly. Require big corporations to provide adequate health insurance, expand the Healthy Families Program, incentives for hybrid vehicles and solar energy, stop any new offshore drilling.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627880/posts
=====
ANGELIDES:
Angelides calls himself a champion of "progressive values." As state treasurer, he has pushed public pension funds to dump tobacco stocks, invest in urban renewal projects and pressure corporations into cleaning up the environment. A close ally of labor, he also supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
If he makes it into a general-election race, his call for increasing taxes could pose problems; Schwarzenegger has been steadfast in opposing higher taxes.
http://www.calcoast.org/news/cpr0060122.html
=====
In the meantime, Arnold:
"They're focused on the Capitol's perpetual war between business and the big four Democratic Party subfactions: labor unions, personal injury lawyers, environmentalists and consumer protection advocates.
The past two years have been bleak ones for the Big 4 because Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has aligned himself with the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, rejecting nearly all of the measures they had dubbed "job killers." Schwarzenegger and business, moreover, bulldozed the Legislature into approving an overhaul of worker's compensation that authorities say is reducing employers' costs by $15 billion a year. It was the most significant advance either side had made in the war in many years and one that Democrats and their allies now want to undo. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627876/posts
Your post should give all long suffering conservatives in California some real hope. Of course, around here, such thinking definitely goes against the CAGOP/New Majority RINO grain. They are dedicated to never ever letting a true conservative anywhere near a ballot.
Thanks for thinking of us.
Unfortunately for Arnold, those are all differences without much of a distinction. It's all a question of how fast you can sprint to the target of a socialist state. Angelides will gt us there the fastest, then Westly and finally Arnold, who prefers cruise control to the target.
" Arnold tried to reduce the power of unions, correct the gerrymandered districts AND control spending with his special election proposisions,..."
We've been over this with you time after time, and it still hasn't sunk in. Probably the result of shift changes at the FO account I would guess. Once more, those propositions failed for a number of very valid reasons: (1) too little, too late; (2) the conservative base didn't trust Arnold then, and even less now; (3) other than some TV ads and a few speeches, Arnold himself did very little to advance the cause; (4) Prop 76 had big problems, as previously enumerated and discussed ad nauseum. That's as much as I have at my fingertips, but we all know the story.
"...which the CA voters defeated. Don't blame Arnold for what the Dem Legislature and the voters did."
And the second that election was over, Arnold immediately launched into a headlong rush to the left. Remember? Sure you do.
Thanks for telling me what I already know about Westly and Angelides. Both of them are unacceptable far left weasels who would normally be considered unelectable but for the fact they are running against another left wing weasel only slightly less reprehensible than the two of them. So now it's a race. Speaking strictly for myself (and a whole bunch of Orange County conservative friends), all three of them are considered unacceptable.
As for your ending two paragraphs attempting to vest Arnold with a few conservative moves, I wonder if you truly recognize how weak, ineffective and unpersuasive your words are?
Pathetic.
I told you a long time ago that many of us are no longer willing to pull that lever on a "least worse" basis. Remember? Especially when the level of difference among them is so thin. And so painfully obvious.
"NO sensible person could possibly think that AngelidThere will be irrevocable damage done to CA, if either Angelides or Westly gets elected. es or Westly woudl be better for CA, than Arnold."
Under the circumstances we have here, FO, asking who would be better really isn't the question. The proper query is: who would be worse? Well, Arnold may be least worse. But I've already told you that many conservatives, me included, have already decided we're all through pulling that lever on a "least worse" basis. I'm sorry that all you can do is make your argument for Arnold on a "least worse" basis, but there you are. Don't blame us if your man Arnold doesn't know the difference between an elephant and a donkey.
" In fact Arnold did as much as ANY Republican/conservative could have achieved under the circumstances."
You know none of us agrees with you on this. The little that Arnold has done is very thin soup. Conservatives won't drink it.
"And instead of understanding and appreciating it, by advocating the defeat of Arnold, you are promoting the election of a liberal socialist Dem."
Again, your words not mine. I am not advocating the defeat of your man Arnold. I've merely pointed out the differences you assert between the three are differences without much of a distinction when it comes to Arnold. Don't blame me if it is hard to tell the difference between Arnold and "a liberal socialist Dem". Arnold has only himself to blame for that.
"There will be irrevocable damage done to CA, if either Angelides or Westly gets elected."
Perhaps. Not my problem. Suggest you take it up with Arnold, the CAGOP/Dufus Sundheim and, of course, the New Majority pecksniffs.
"Using rhetoric that "all three are unacceptable" only tried to make an equivalence between Arnold and the socialist Dems."
It isn't rhetoric because the equivalence is right there for all to see. I suggest you keep denying it though. It's really about all you can do.
"First of all there is NO THIRD viable alternative,..."
Granted. So what?
"People ignore it at their and our peril."
As I said, don't blame us for who you may wind up with. Take it up with those who are really responsible: Arnold; the CAGOP/Dufus Sundheim; the New Majority; and the GOP/RNC.
Really would like to help you out here, FO, but I'm afraid you're stuck with what you have. We all realize that you will have to go home with the guy that brought ya'.
Good luck.
Recognize yourself in this article?
The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game (FR Mentioned) (article full text)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613957/posts?page=87#87
""For the MILLIONTH time:
Look what happened when Republicans nominated conservatives: they were beaten handily by Gray Davis, and we ended up with Gray Davis as governor, precisely because ONLY Republicans voted for them, who are only 34% of the voters.
Ignoring reality doesn't win elections.
The only way a Republican can get elected in CA, is by appealing to the center and even center left.""
I am getting sick of blind conservatives who think conservatism wins everytime...it doesnt..Arnold is the best youre gonna get in CA....and guess what CA was never a conservative state. Gov Reagan was a fluke.
""Don't give us ‘California is a liberal state’ until you know what you are talking about.""
where to start with this statement
The keep ignoring the reality of the demographics.
CALIFORNIA VOTER AND PARTY PROFILES
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_VoterProfilesJTF.pdf
"The Democratic Party currently has an advantage of 1.4 million voters over the Republican Party (7.1 million to 5.7 million) or 9 percentage points (43% to 34%), according to the Secretary of State.
Among those most likely to vote in this year’s elections, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 7-point margin (44% to 37%), while 15 percent of likely voters are registered as independents.
... the fact that independents are more likely to lean toward Democrats than Republicans (42% to 28%) tends to work to the disadvantage of the GOP in statewide elections."
What the hell do you think 14 cents for each gallon of gas was supposed to go? It was SUPPOSED to be earmarked for infrastructure. There was a time when California's infrastructure was the envy of not just the USA, but the world.
But after Prop 13, eventually, they (I think Jerry Brown) illegally transferred the gas tax to the general fund, where it pays for welfare, teaching Spanish, health benefits for illegals, etc.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, then don't say that replenishing Peter is anything other than subsidizing Paul.
But not as sick as we are of party-above-principle Big Tent GOP hacks who think doing the same thing over and over again is the path to true conservatism.
Did I mention you're a bit too much "in your face" for someone who just arrived? Consider it mentioned. By the way, in case you may have missed it, FR is a conservative site for conservatives.
guess what CA isnt conservative, youre not going to elect a conservative there for anything statewide.
I never pay any attention to what people write about me...especially people named Dustin Hawkins.
Well let's take a look at that "reality." We had eight years of Reagan, who got re-elected by a landslide, and then a "moderate" GHWB wrecked that momentum in only three years. Then, after the people got sick of leftists, a conservative Gingrich et al, won the Congress for the first time in sixty years. On the strength of that, the GOP ran "moderate" Bob Dole, who sank like a brick. Then we got a "moderate" GWB, who now is not only sinking the presidency for Republicans, but is virtually flushing his Republican majority in Congress as well.
We can thank the Bush family for the disaster in California too, seeing as it was Rove who virtually appointed Gerry Parsky who then did everything within his power to torpedo a conservative gubernatorial candidate in Bill Simon. Despite Parsky's efforts, conservative Simon lost by only 1.6%, fully refuting FareOpinon's BS numbers.
Yeah, you Party titans really have a grip.
No harm--no foul.
while conseravtism usually wins, it doesnt always win.
Goldwater in a good example
at the state levels conservative candidates lose to liberals all the time. Bret Schulder is a great example. went down in flames twice.
I am willing to bet that George Allen will lose in 2006. He is a pretty good conservative. He wont win a single state GW Bush lost, but could lose quite a few Bush won.
I also notice that everytime a conservative does lose, it was never the conservative idealogy that was rejected, but someone from a smoke filled back room stabbed the him in the back
FairOpinion is the Baghdad Bob of the California threads.
George Deukmejian.
Ring a bell?
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.