Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Schwarzenegger makes deals with the Dems
AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/31/06 | Laura Kurtzman - ap

Posted on 08/31/2006 3:55:50 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to cap California's greenhouse gas emissions is just the latest in a string of recent deals with the Democrats that could help him win back the moderate voters so vital to his re-election bid this fall.

The deal announced Wednesday between the Republican governor and leaders of the Democratic-controlled Legislature would make California the first state to limit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from factories and other industrial sites.

Earlier in the week, the two sides agreed to raise the state's minimum wage and create a prescription drug discount program.

Democrats have been playing ball with Schwarzenegger since they passed a $37.3 billion bond package in May that the governor had sought. The money would go toward transportation, levee repairs, school buildings and affordable housing.

The deals have opened up Schwarzenegger to charges that he is jettisoning his Republican principles as he seeks re-election. But they are political treasure for Schwarzenegger because they appeal to the moderates who dominate the state.

Schwarzenegger alienated them last year with his polarizing special election in which he clashed with the state's powerful teachers union.

At a news conference Wednesday to announce the global warming deal, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, pronounced it "a huge victory for the governor."

Democrats are eagerly working with the governor, despite the potential political damage to their own candidate for governor, state Treasurer Phil Angelides.

"For Democrats, if you're here to do public policy and the governor is offering a deal, you have to take a look at it," said Assemblyman Dario Frommer, a Los Angeles Democrat.

The Democrats' willingness to strike deals that hurt Angelides could mean they do not believe he can win in November, said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who is not affiliated with the Angelides campaign.

"Their interest and desire to pursue these subjects is an indication of how strong a campaign they think Angelides is running," Lehane said.

And they are more than willing to take advantage of the governor's political need to compromise. "Arnold has been willing to literally give everyone in Sacramento their particular Christmas gift early this year," Lehane said.

In pursuing some of the legislation that could endear him to moderates, Schwarzenegger clearly risks alienating conservatives and business leaders.

Business leaders warned that the greenhouse gas measure could drive away business and kill jobs.

As for the minimum wage deal, Schwarzenegger opposed any increase when he was elected. But this time he agreed to raise it by $1.25 an hour.

On the prescription drug deal, the governor's election-year turnaround was even more dramatic. He agreed to impose sanctions on drug companies that do not offer discounts to people who otherwise have to pay full retail price, a position he flatly rejected two years ago.

Schwarzenegger's compromises leave him open to charges he is flip-flopping to win support beyond his Republican base, which makes up just 38 percent of the electorate.

"He's absolutely willing to prostitute himself on anything," said Angelides adviser Bill Carrick. "How humiliating it must be to be a Republican in this state."

Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson said Schwarzenegger was influenced only by the improved economy.

"The governor has been consistent in fighting to bring affordability of health care to consumers," she said. "And now that he's gotten the budget on a better footing, we can sustain an increase in the minimum wage, ensuring that workers share in the economic expansion."

Mark Baldassare a pollster for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, said Democrats would lose credibility if they refused to work with the governor on issues that are important to their constituencies.

"Global warming, raising the minimum wage — these are pretty popular things in California right now," Baldassare said.

But, he said, handing the governor victories on key Democratic issues can't help Angelides.

"It takes away one of the most potent messages for a Democratic candidate, which is Republicans don't care about working people and the environment," he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: angelides; arnoldlegacy; caelection; callegislation; deal; election2006; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: p. henry

Red Phil would be even worse, first off. Arnold is at least vetoing SOME of the worst insanities being passed by the Leftistlature, such as drivers' licenses for illegals; Angelides would sign those too ("too" because Arnold also has signed too many lefty bills, esp. lately).

Arnold's overall ratio of appointing conservative judges and state-bureaucracy folks is less poor than what we'd see from Angelides. With Arnold, I complain (for example), "Oh, that new state supreme court justice isn't even a conservative." (I complain like that a lot, I'm sorry to say.) In partial but important contrast, Angelides can be counted upon to appoint leftist toadies straight down the line.

So what's the conservative argument for letting Red Phil take over for four years? I think it's respectable, and it goes something like this. "Sure, Red Phil will run hog wild, or try to, appointing leftist judges/bureaucrats, etc. BUT. With a Democrat governor, the GOP legislators will finally dig in and refuse to pass tax-hiking budgets -- whereas, with Arnold and Pete Wilson, some GOP legislators went along with tax hikes BECAUSE the governor had an "R" by his name. After four years of Red Phil, enough moderates in California will see how wrong the Dems are for the state, and we can get McClintock the heck into office finally."

I'm conflicted. Clearly I'm looking at 4-5 more years of horrific tax-and-spend bloat under the BEST case scenario.

Ready to start up a business in California, knowing that? I didn't think so! ._.


21 posted on 08/31/2006 4:43:54 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Arnold isn't a socialist? Could have fooled me.


22 posted on 08/31/2006 4:44:02 PM PDT by ducdriver ("Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ducdriver

At least he has held the line on taxes.


23 posted on 08/31/2006 4:46:50 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shotgun ed
If you have any self repect and principles, you should not vote for the log cabin governor. Demand the state republican party boot him, or start a grass-roots effort to remove these phony northeast republicans as state and local party chairs.

I second this. You now understand why the political parties won't allow "None of the above" on a ballot. A pox on them all.

24 posted on 08/31/2006 4:50:38 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pogo101

If you had children, you wouldn't be conflicted.
The GLBT agenda for public schools is horrific, and Angelides will NOT be vetoing their bills.

The damage he can do in 4 years is, as our founder says, "unthinkable."


25 posted on 08/31/2006 4:55:57 PM PDT by b9 ("the [evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat Party] alternative is unthinkable" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: doodlelady

I'm leaning strongly towards a "Stop Red Phil" vote, yes, for that and other reasons. Another is my hope that Arnold is mostly "running left" at the moment ONLY as a political tactic to "occupy the center" come November, to make clear just how wacky Phil is ... and that, after the election, Arnold will show at least a LITTLE more conservatism. Of course, I could be wrong. Either way, it's depressing.


26 posted on 08/31/2006 4:59:56 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; Nachum; freedumb2003

Just an open question to Californians (and I used to be one)...Do you people not realize that he's married to a Kennedy? He sleeps with a Kennedy? He shares a home and a checking account with a Kennedy? He has four children with a Kennedy? And as an "Environmentalist" he shares a few SUVs, a few McMansion homes and a few gas-guzzling airplanes with a Kennedy, ala Algore?

Arnold is a great example of an immigrant 'Making It In America.' He's an awesome businessman and a goal-setter. Do you not see this Governorship as just another "goal" of his? Why did he run in CA? Why not, say, Nebraska? Why did The Beast run in New York and not her "home towns" of either IL or AK?

Pillow talk will get you everywhere. Even into the State House. ;)

Disclaimer: My state is also run by Socialists. I feel your pain. I don't fault you at all for chosing him over your other choices, but until we all stand firm and DEMAND that the GOP give us TRUE Conservatives, we'll continue to be offered sh*t on toast (RINOs) because they know we'll eat it.

Or else our party truly IS bankrupt and devoid of True Conservatives; a much more terrifying notion, actually.


27 posted on 08/31/2006 5:21:13 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
but until we all stand firm and DEMAND that the GOP give us TRUE Conservatives, we'll continue to be offered sh*t on toast (RINOs) because they know we'll eat it.

We had one -- Tom McClintock. Fortunately, he is running for Lt. Guv and hopefully will be ushered in on Arnold's coattails.

He is a red meat conservative who has forgotten more about government finance than most people will ever learn.

If Tom can learn to come across well on camera (he is dynamite on radio) he can look too succeed Arnold (over the MECHista racist Villareconquista) and California can finally begin a new day.

28 posted on 08/31/2006 5:28:14 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: p. henry

"Arnold can't win without conservatives, and he is rapidly losing them."

Arnold can win with just moderate Republicans.


29 posted on 08/31/2006 5:29:28 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Who is Arnie's base? It certainly isn't the GOP. The Democrat base aren't going to support Arnie, even those Democrats who now comprise his entire staff.

Are there enough "Moderates" to reelect Arnie, or are 90% of the Democrats just going to stay home?

Arnie will get less than half the GOP vote, maybe even less. He's less popular with the GOP rank and file than Gray Davis was. He's a one-half-term govinator.

SFS

30 posted on 08/31/2006 5:33:41 PM PDT by Steel and Fire and Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Right now we are in the fight of our lives to get Mark Green (R, WI) elected Governor over the sleaze-bag socialist 'Rat we currently have running the state. Think 'The Beast' as a man; well, little difference there actually, LOL!

This week (I'll post later) the Elections Board REVERSED itself AGAIN and suddenly Green has to "give back" $486,000.00 in PAC money that the Elections Board said he COULD transfer from his Congressional Coffers to run for Governor. (In 2002, they allowed Barret, who was then running for Governor as a 'Rat to use $700K from his coffers to run!! He lost, but still!)

It's maddening! If I don't go postal come September, it'll be a miracle, LOL!


31 posted on 08/31/2006 5:38:22 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Moving Left doesn't seem to have hurt Arnold as much as its left the Angelides campaign without a clear target of opportunity.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

32 posted on 08/31/2006 5:40:12 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
I will be doing something I've never done before this fall in the governor's race, I'm going to vote Libertarian.

====================================================================

I'm not voting for drug liberalization, for more anti-1st ammendment policies, and the rest of the "anti-Christian, anti-conservative social policy; RINO economic policy" that passes for the Libertarian agenda. It'd be little better than voting (again) for Arnie.

No, I have few options. I can (a) reelect Arnie, and let him take his policy stage national (and this WILL happen), or (b) elect the Democrat Socialist-Marxist, and allow him to mess up the Kalifornia economy worse than Gray Davis.

Those are lousy choices, but Arnie made the issue personal for me. His administration "voted" against kids from Christian high schools like my daughter ever being allowed to attend a UC school. He just signed a bill to remove my daughter's current eligibility for a CALGRANT, probably mid-way through her Freshman year, because her school Christian college won't hire gay professors. First they kick her out of the UC system, and then they go after the Christian college she's paying $132,000 to attend.

I'm voting against Arnie, and for the only guy who can beat him, and he's a Democrat. It's all lunacy, but all I care about is making certain that Schwarzenegger is forever out of public office at the end of this year.

SFS

33 posted on 08/31/2006 5:42:00 PM PDT by Steel and Fire and Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
NO! I may dispassionately regard Arnold's strategery as getting him where he wants but that does NOT mean he has my support as a Republican. As a conservative, I cannot vote for a liberal, regardless of party label.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

34 posted on 08/31/2006 5:42:46 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
As of 2003, about 13% of the electorate that bothered to vote was conservative. The remaining 87% of the electorate that voted was either partisan or independent.

I've heard that B.S. from RINO's and Democrats since 1980. Perhaps the GOP conservatives area minority of the GOP base (which I doubt; I believe the figure is more like 60%), but they make up about 75% of the GOP voters come election time.

No matter. The California RINO run GOP has told guys like me to "take a hike" since I turned 18. At age 50, I'm going to do just that. Arnie is the stake in the heart that killed the CA GOP.

SFS

35 posted on 08/31/2006 5:45:58 PM PDT by Steel and Fire and Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Hang tough -- just spent a few months in Milwaukee -- downtown with a straight view of the Art Museum and the lake.

Had a great time and became quite fond of it.


36 posted on 08/31/2006 5:48:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I guess we can drop the RINO label and replace it with a new one.

RINOW (Republican In Name Only Whore)

37 posted on 08/31/2006 5:49:34 PM PDT by SMM48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone

Don't vote for the Dem. Those people are traitors and they're the ones who pushed the bill against private education you are angry about. Someone on here had a good suggestion to just leave the governor's vote blank to show how he underperforms against real conservatives like McClintock. I understand what you're saying about not voting Libertarian. I may pick the Constitution Party or who knows what. But let's not enable the Party of Treason. Arnold is bad, Phil is worse. Best to keep from voting for either.


38 posted on 08/31/2006 5:51:28 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting out of anger in November is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
... Should Republicans vote for a liberal, even if that liberal is a registered Republican and supported by his state party?

Yes! The agents of the fifth column for Philthy Angelides and for national socialism would have republicans and conservatives equate liberals, both D and R, and punish the R side of the equation. To suggest this question is the earmark of a liberal stooge, as all the ilk herd are.

39 posted on 08/31/2006 6:02:47 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
... I'm going to vote Libertarian. ...

Which supports Philthy Angelides ...

40 posted on 08/31/2006 6:07:47 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson