Posted on 11/18/2006 8:36:44 AM PST by calcowgirl
As a conservative, I'm rooting for the re-emergence of Gov. Schwarzenegger circa 2005, who pledged to "blow up the boxes," eliminate the structural deficit and rein in the powerful government unions.
Shawn Steel, a Rolling Hills resident, is chairman of the California Club for Growth and former chairman of the California Republican Party.
"What will Arnold do now?" That is usually a rhetorical question used by news media as a lead-in for stories about second-term policy agendas.
Here in California, there's nothing rhetorical about it because no one is sure what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will do during his second term -- which speaks volumes about our governor. Though he's served less than a full term, the governor has assumed at least three distinct public personas -- the middle-of-the-road populist reformer, then the conservative anti-government reformer, followed by the Republicrat populist reformer who just won re-election.
Which of those will be the dominant one in an administration afflicted with MPPS: Multiple Political Personalities Syndrome? Or will a new, fusion personality one emerge?
As a conservative, I'm rooting for the re-emergence of Gov. Schwarzenegger circa 2005, who pledged to "blow up the boxes," eliminate the structural deficit and rein in the powerful government unions. In the wake of a 16-point re-election victory and the passage of his entire bond package, Schwarzenegger can make a strong case that the infrastructure crisis has been addressed and now is the time to fix the structural defects that keep state government finances in perpetual deficit.
As a co-founder of the Gray Davis recall, I'd be happy with the return of the 2003 populist centrist who kept his promise to repeal the car tax and used his popularity and momentum to muscle legislative Democrats into passing meaningful reform of our job-killing workers' compensation system.
But as a realist, I think it's most likely Schwarzenegger will begin his second term the same way he ended his first: as a hybrid Democratic-Republican. In that incarnation he has enjoyed his greatest success as governor -- if by success you mean passing legislation and earning plaudits from the mainstream media and Democratic politicians.
There's no discernible evidence the governor has any interest in building the Republican Party in California or fashioning any kind of permanent, center-right governing coalition. He made little effort to help his fellow statewide GOP candidates, even though he had effectively defeated Phil Angelides weeks before Election Day. Former Gov. Pete Wilson did so in the closing weeks of his 1994 re-election, paying for statewide television ads promoting every other GOP statewide candidate (with the glaring exception of Tom McClintock).
Wilson's efforts resulted in a GOP near- sweep of the statewide constitutional offices. It's a shame the governor devoted so much energy to campaigning arm-in-arm with Democratic politicians for his massive bond package and spent so little of his popularity and war chest to elect Republican constitutional officers who could help him in his second term.
The governor has already made it clear that insuring those without health insurance is going to be his top priority going into his second term. Given the political realities in Sacramento and Schwarzenegger's recent track record, that most likely means expanding the role of government in the health care system.
Recently, the governor has shown little reluctance to sign legislation imposing costly new mandates on business -- witness, for example, his approval of the greenhouse gases bill and two minimum wage increases. Perhaps that was short-term political dealing. This is sad coming from a man who used to describe himself of a disciple of free-market philosopher Milton Friedman.
It's unlikely the governor will try using his massive re-election victory to make the Democratic Legislature accommodate itself to a more market-oriented health care reform. But he could surprise us. Schwarzenegger endured one of the most profound political beatings ever experienced in California with big labor's $160 million media campaign last year. He invested more than $7 million of his own money supporting important structural reforms, including ending gerrymandering and permanently controlling state spending.
I'll bet he still believes those initiatives are good ideas. And, who doesn't believe the governor is still smarting from all those personal attacks that would have criminalized Mother Teresa? It would be waste of a remarkable political comeback should Schwarzenegger drift left. It would take a leader with vision and determination to fight for the hard-but-necessary reforms without which California government is doomed to fiscal instability and chaos.
We can only hope the governor realizes the way to historical relevance and good government lay down the latter path.
He sold out all of his years of great work to make the New Majority donors happy.
Yep! I didn't vote for Arnold the first time - I think Tom would have made a much better Gov.
And .. I only voted for Arnold this time because THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE.
That Arnold is long and forever gone. The FAILURE of the electorate to support his initiatives in 2005 convinced him (correctly so, I might add) that the majority of electorate DOES NOT WANT conserviative policy. Conservatatives have no-one to blame but themselves, just like two weeks ago.
I share your disappointment and frustration, but at this point I welcome any voices that will try to rein in the monster that was created.
FYI... Daucher now down by 783. :-(
Saw that. Someone needs to be horsewhipped.
Give me a break! The initiatives were hardly "conservative" and the inherent flaws, along with the inept, arrogant, combative campaign was the reason for their failure.
That's the liberal media spin. The fact is the initiatives on the 2005 special election ballot were far from simple conservative policy that the voters could relate to. It was arcane political in-speak stuff that voters just shrugged their shoulders about.
As evidence, only 18% of California's voters said NO to those initiatives. Those represent the union hack die hards, the rest either said YES or shrugged their shoulders and stayed home. That's Arnold and his campaign team's fault for not crafting a clear concise message.
Here's a great article on that subject:
http://www.cppf.us/OnlineOriginals/Columns/2005/12Dec05/120205FD.html
There was no possibility of a clear and concise message with the ilk and the cannibalistic conservatives muddying the water, dividing the base and disgusting and demoralizing potential voters.
I'm not convinced that Arnold ever existed to begin with.
The real problem that I think people overlook is that Arnorld is NOT a conservative!, although he is probably as close to one as it is possible to elect in the Peoples Liberal Democratic Republic of Kalifornia. The Kalifornia liberals think he is some form of Genghis Khan yet most of his policies tilt more toward the liberal point of view than they even realize. I mean a Pro Gun Control "conservative"?
I don't think that it is probably possible for a true conservative to be elected (at least to the Governor's mansion) in the Peoples Liberal Democratic Republic of Kalifornia.
Paycheck protection, not conservative?
Tougher teacher tenure requirements, not conservative?
So Arnold didn't fight hard enough this year but was too combative last year?
Paycheck protection, parental notification, tougher requirements for teacher tenure aren't conservative?
I notice you don't give a syllable of mention to the 100 million of union borrowing and dues which attacked Arnold at every level throughout 2005.
You are rambling. Maybe a little too much White Zinfandel over breakfast at the Country Club?
Hey! I remember listening to he and Melanie Morgan hatch the Recall one morning on KSFO and so many "Republicans" (Tim Leslie in particular) just snorted at Steel and the idea of a Recall!!!
I don't really disagree with what you said, but at least Shawn spells his first name the American way and not the "old european" way!!! (grin)
Since you can no longer spell conservatives... having blown it twice in two sentences above, check my tagline for the correct spelling from here on out, ok? (snart!)
Sorry. Only scary John Kerry (who served in Vietnam by the way) believes that of who everyone else in CA knows is Conan the Barbarian!!! (who sleeps with a Kennedy!)(smirk)
Arnold fought plenty hard this year--For himself and for Big-Government Borrowing. He did nothing for the downticket (unless you count the negative effect of sliming McClintock in highly publicized campaign events).
Paycheck protection, parental notification, tougher requirements for teacher tenure aren't conservative?
Arnold did not consider parental notification as one of "his" intitiatives. Remember it was Prop 75, 75, 76, and 77 that he campaigned for. We've been through this before, NJ, proposition by proposition. Do I really have to repeat it all again (just for you to cut tail and run with no reply, as usual)?
I notice you don't give a syllable of mention to the 100 million of union borrowing and dues which attacked Arnold at every level throughout 2005.
Why should I? Union opposition to something (restraints on dues and reduced tenure) does not alone make something "conservative".
Not everyone, just the ilk. You know, the ones you're following.
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.