Suggest a review of California's constitution process.
far too many conservatives didn't turn out in 2005..
This remains the great urban myth promulgated by Republican moderates and liberals. There is no direct evidence of that contention beyond voter registration and nonpartisan participation stats.
His more liberal behavior as of late can be traced DIRECTLY back to his crushing defeat at the 2005 special election. It cut the heart out of his credibility, and took away his most powerful negotiating tool: That he'd go to the people to do what the legislature wouldn't.
Once again curious logic:
1) Liberal pursuits caused by a crushing, popular defeat in late 2005.
2) Disarmed by the electorate, he is forced to capitulate.
With regard to the executive, the legislative process involves the electorate every four years. Between election cycles, the constitutional, legislative process prevails. The legislative majority submits all but budgets and taxation to the governor for approval. If disapproved by the executive, the legislative minority then controls the process.
He screwed up the timing. He should have done it in 2004 when he was still popular instead of 2005 when there wasn't anything else going on and he could be the focus of the $100mil the unions used to beat him.
The single biggest mistake of Schwarzenegger's first term came in 2003, the day he took office. In a rush to be popular, he made a costly blunder because he acted impulsively. The consequences of that rush to judgment, wound through 2004 and by 2005 the Austrian had not only alienated the majority of his own party's membership, but also the vast majority of his Republican brethren in the state legislature. The die was cast. In the fall of 2005, for a second time in his short political career, he rushed the process again, supporting initiatives he neither proposed nor desired and then compounded the foolishness but staking his political career on a horse he didn't trust.
Unless it says 'minority wins', there isn't much they can do but block.
Sure, they can keep tax increases from coming because of the 2/3rds rule, but Arnold's been excellent on that issue anyway.
This remains the great urban myth promulgated by Republican moderates and liberals. There is no direct evidence of that contention beyond voter registration and nonpartisan participation stats.
Umm, yah, you aren't correct.
It's not that hard: Orange County had relatively low turnout, downtown L.A. had higher turnout, etc.
I'm not accusing conservatives of 'selling him out' like Fair Opinion is, I don't think that's true, but it's hard to credibly argue that the Unions didn't have a FAR better GOTV effort.
Once again curious logic:
1) Liberal pursuits caused by a crushing, popular defeat in late 2005. 2) Disarmed by the electorate, he is forced to capitulate.
With regard to the executive, the legislative process involves the electorate every four years. Between election cycles, the constitutional, legislative process prevails. The legislative majority submits all but budgets and taxation to the governor for approval. If disapproved by the executive, the legislative minority then controls the process.
Yah...you really don't understand how politics really works. There's such a thing as 'political capital', 'bargaining power', etc. They don't write them down in the Constitution but they are every bit as big of a part of government as anything else.
And if you don't understand why he got wiped out in 2005, you don't understand politics.
In the fall of 2005, for a second time in his short political career, he rushed the process again, supporting initiatives he neither proposed nor desired and then compounded the foolishness but staking his political career on a horse he didn't trust.
Huh?!?!?!
If he didn't believe in them, it's sure odd that he not only campaigned heavily for them, but spent his OWN MONEY on the ad campaign.