Daniel Weintraub: Don't bet on Arnold Schwarzenegger to fail now

SACBEE ^ | 10/09/03 | Daniel Weintraub

[Pikamax]

Daniel Weintraub: Don't bet on Arnold Schwarzenegger to fail now By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, October 9, 2003 For all his bravado and bluster, and even with his convincing victory on Tuesday, Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't going to get very far as the state's chief executive unless he can persuade the Legislature to pass his program, or, as Gov. Gray Davis once put it, implement his vision. But the doubters should proceed with caution. California's new governor is a man who has succeeded at virtually everything he has done in life, against great odds. Don't look for him to fail now.

[DoctorZIn]

This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Redwood71]

Arnie has the training as an actor and a speaker with his career in the business. Reagan was the same way. Where Reagan nailed his opponents was in the press. Arnie has an agenda, and will have opponents. But if he uses the podium and forces the media to film, he can embarrass a lot of people before next election. Remember, it was the vote of liberals that got him elected and a governor "shipped" from office. Getting rats to do that is incredible enough as they go through seizures if they don't vote lib. Give him a chance. He's a lot like Bush in that he is going through both sides of the aisle. But I firmly believe he expects support and will "terminate" (sorry, I couldn't help that one) his dissidents with negative publicity. The libs have gone through the cash cow named Davis for a long time. There's a new sheriff in town. And I, for one, am rooting for him.

[Carry_Okie]

Reagan was the same way.

False analogy. Reagan was directly involved in politics for many years before running for governor. Schwarzenegger didn't even bother to vote.

He's a lot like Bush in that he is going through both sides of the aisle.

Well that stands to reason, seeing as he is doing whatever the Rove/Parsky machine tells him to do.

But I firmly believe he expects support and will "terminate" (sorry, I couldn't help that one) his dissidents with negative publicity.

The negative publicity will be the endless dripping of news stories to undercut his policies, a stream of interviews with activists and consultants who fear budget cuts raining on their parade.

I hope he does turn out good for California, but I have legitimate doubts. His environmental policy convinced me that he is a dangerous fool, callow enough to believe that to have a policy that is good for nature, one goes to environmentalists, who in fact don't give a damn about anything but power and money. I wrote the book on that.

[Redwood71]

"False analogy. Reagan was directly involved in politics for many years before running for governor."

Reagan was recognized by senior republicans in 1964 and ran for governor of California first in 1966.

"Well that stands to reason, seeing as he is doing whatever the Rove/Parsky machine tells him to do."

Could you please give me some source on this? I wasn't aware that Karl Rove was even talking to Arnie? And when you look at the people that worked for Davis, like Clinton, the LA Times, Jesse Jackson, and others, assuming that Karl Rove was involved when Arnie didn't claim anything trashy on Davis other than he was inept, is a stretch.

"The negative publicity will be the endless dripping of news stories to undercut his policies, a stream of interviews with activists and consultants who fear budget cuts raining on their parade."

You missed what I said. He is not a career politician so he doesn't have to worry about the next election to have a job. If he wants to go on "live" television and cut them a new backside, he can. It's hard to threatened someone with nothing.

"I hope he does turn out good for California, but I have legitimate doubts. His environmental policy convinced me that he is a dangerous fool, callow enough to believe that to have a policy that is good for nature, one goes to environmentalists, who in fact don't give a damn about anything but power and money. I wrote the book on that."

Congrats on your book. But the environment is a true back burner topic when the state is taxing businesses into Nevada and the coffers are multi, multi millions in the hole. The spotted owl can't pay for the state, and the illegal aliens can't either. The previous administration drained the well and couldn't find the money tree in the back yard. There are way more important problems so the environment isn't on the list yet. Give it time, and it probably will. But it doesn't make since to worry about it if no one lives there because they can't afford it. It becomes a wilderness again.

[Carry_Okie]

Reagan was recognized by senior republicans in 1964 and ran for governor of California first in 1966.

Reagan was writing policy materials and active in politics before then. Have you read any of those writings? None of them are as shallow as Arnold's speeches which was my point about Reagan's relative preparation and ability.

Could you please give me some source on this? I wasn't aware that Karl Rove was even talking to Arnie?

I didn't say Rove directly, I said "the Rove/Parsky machine" as an analogy for the "moderate" CAGOP leadership, and the incredible pressure they placed upon the entire party apparatus in support of Arnold contrasted with the deliberately destructive controls they placed on Bill Simon's campaign when he ran for governor or the deprivation of any support for Tom McClintock's candidacy when he ran for controller. If you want a discussion of that, I can supply it. Rove had a great deal to do with Parsky getting that job and has done nothing to change that.

You missed what I said. He is not a career politician so he doesn't have to worry about the next election to have a job. If he wants to go on "live" television and cut them a new backside, he can. It's hard to threatened someone with nothing.

You are right I did miss that, but it is because we have very different impressions of Arnold's character. I actually shared your thesis before the election, to the point that I speculated on this forum that Arnold might take a dive at the end to kill the recall (on the belief that he didn't really care to actually DO the relatively boring job of being governor) or because he just didn't want to deal with the dirt when it finally came. I misjudged the depth of Arnold's ambitions. He has a desperate need for adulation. He really does want to help kids and take care of people, so it WILL hurt when he's accused of depriving children of anything, even when it's only cutting out a bunch of fat cat consultants. Didn't you see him in the crowd after his acceptance speech? The man was borderline out of control! I do think media attacks will faze him emotionally, and, if the mediots can ignore Bush on TV, do you really think they will give Arnold that much time compared to their nightly undermining of hardship stories?

Congrats on your book. But the environment is a true back burner topic when the state is taxing businesses into Nevada and the coffers are multi, multi millions in the hole.

There you are flat out wrong in the case of many manufacturing operations that are leaving, and especially agriculture, which is the largest industry in California (and with it follow food processing, industrial construction, genetic crop research...). The cost of regulation exceeds the differential cost of wages and taxes in many cases, particularly when it destroys a critical supply chain or access to a neccary resource, such as water. Further, you would be surprised at the degree to which the environmental arena has manipulated the real estate prices that prohibit many companies from expanding here and forces them to move. Had you said "workmans compensation" I might have agreed with you in terms of its immediate severity (especially with regard to construction), but that one is easier to fix. On the environmental front, Arnold portends to make things MUCH worse.

There are way more important problems so the environment isn't on the list yet. Give it time, and it probably will. But it doesn't make since to worry about it if no one lives there because they can't afford it. It becomes a wilderness again.

No, it becomes a very expensive problem, and if you don't believe it you should check out the third world. There are some truly desperate habitat conditions in rural California and more that portend serious problems, paradoxically because of environmentalists, who are hell-bent upon destroying this nation. Ignore land management at your peril.

[Cultural Jihad]

Ah, the fellow who was too busy golfing or other to actually go and be responsible enough to vote against Gray Davis' latest gay rights bill. Some 'principled conservative' that.

[Carry_Okie]

Remember also that the power crisis that is the basis of that $43 BILLION in power bonds was manufactured out of primarily environmental considerations. You might want to read the whole article and Post 136 of this thread. Environmental issues aren't a small-time backwater irritant, they comprise corruption on a grand scale with enormous economic consequences.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Are you insane? What are you babbling about here?

[Redwood71]

I don't disagree. But without an income base that historically is supplied by business, as the agricultural part of the state also uses these same businesses, the cash flow needed to handle the previously more important items by the state, some they shouldn't have even started, go tango uniform. The luxuries of running a state with such a huge economy can be destructive if the state overdraws it's capacity. The tripling of the car taxes was an example of the panic efforts of the state government, liberal by nature, to try to smother their short sightedness.

The previous administration through passed bills and having others in the works, have chased the cash cow across the borders. My old man used to say "Don't $hit where you eat." And in finding out that, at least, 1/4 of the unions in the state, usually strong liberal allies, voted for recall, I would say they have slapped business on the nose with the rolled up paper a little too much.

Environment has its place. But, there's no need to worry about it in a desert. Trying to recover the economy is the first and formost topic right now. And that is an area Arnie has a little knowledge in. And definately more than Reagan did. So, that's a plus.

Red

[Carry_Okie]

But without an income base that historically is supplied by business, as the agricultural part of the state also uses these same businesses, the cash flow needed to handle the previously more important items by the state, some they shouldn't have even started, go tango uniform.

You've got it backwards. The resource business provides the cash flow for support businesses infrastructure.

Trying to recover the economy is the first and formost topic right now.

Reducing the regulatory burden may mean more to accomplishing that than would taxation. Consider the secondary impact of regulation on prices for electrical power that induced the $43 billion in bonds, or the flushing of over $20 billion on MTBE. It's big.

[Cultural Jihad]

The 'oh-so-principled uber-conservative' McClintock hadn't even bothered show up to cast a NO vote against AB 205, the so-called 'Domestic Partners' measure, in the California Senate on August 28th. Abstaining to vote is the same as voting "yes."

Thanks a lot, Tom, for shirking your duties and responsibilities to the electorate who misplaced their trust in you to care more about their issues than in your own ego.

[Redwood71]

"You've got it backwards. The resource business provides the cash flow for support businesses infrastructure."

---

Not completely. I'm from the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare County originally, and in my youth, agriculture was the key to success in the area. But, that has changed. Ranching is much more co-op now and the small rancher is a thing of the past. Large business is that guy in the straw hat since about 20 years ago, and their achievements have been based upon size and capital, not bartering corn for tomatoes. Ranching by its needs is a turnover business requiring operating on last year's money because, unless you are a dairy, there are no fast turnover products. This is why a large number of ranchers that once worked in one or two crops, now diversify their fields to try to include crops that can be sold alternatley to try to garnish capital on a more consistent plane. Example, one family has sons that grow, one, sugar beets and milo, and another, cattle. They also co-op with a third brother in citris to sell. The beets and milo are for the cattle, the citris for all three. But, I'm sure you undertand what they are, pretty much, forced to do in self defence.

Industry is replacing the ranchers. The investment of corporations in ranching is immence. And something as simple as a lot of companies creating their own transpotation lines, (or dealing with special deals to current lines), to cut costs, has further created industry. If these industries are pushed out of the state by healthcare requirements or other taxes aimed at business, then the cash cow goes east also. Remember what happened to the insurance industry when Nadar lied to the public and they left. This is just a grander scale. And this one is huge as it affects every business in the state. The disagreement we have at the top of this entry I think is this: You think the businesses come here because of the great growing environment, and I think they are here because of what they can get out of the environment. If they can't get anything because the state is taking it away from them, then they won't come in or stay. And all the environment money being taken just goes away with the rest of the money. If you have nothing to spend, then reading the bills is worthless.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Oh, I didn't even were you were going with that tangent the first time CJ, it was so off topic...since the topic was whether your guy, you know the Governor, is actually going to be able to deal with the evil that is Kruel and Goldberg, etc.

You can't, you saw the picture of Tom and just completely melted down, you are still ah hominem attacking Tom like broken record, its kinda funny to watch someone so consumed with childish hatred and bitterness like you...I thought I was the one still talking like the election wasn't over! Well it is, yippie, now you are responsible-best of luck with your fiscal "conservative"! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Besides, I find it pretty comical that a rationalizing, hyper defensive poster like yourself would have the gall to talk about degrees of "conservative" after what you were shoving down peoples' throats for a couple months! Well you "won" get to work! Where are those spending cuts by the way???? Wonder what Willie Brown will propose to trim. LOL!

[Cultural Jihad]

its kinda funny to watch someone so consumed with childish hatred and bitterness ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

You've been staring into a mirror for too long.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

CJ's verbose way of offering "I know you are but what am I?" Pee Wee Herman-defense.

Good one!

Where are those spending cuts going to be anyhow?

[Carry_Okie]

Your observations of trends in the resource marketplace are correct, but your understanding of why it is has assumed its current direction as a simple result of economics is not entirely true. What you are witnessing is an economy deliberately distorted by political and legal forces intended to profit the investor class at the expense of smaller landowners. The reson the bigger corporations are destroying the small landowner isn't as much economies of scale in ranching as it is grain price supports, negotiating power against (IMO) an oligopoly of meatpackers that needs breaking up, and economies of scale in regulatory compliance, some of which has been politically AIMED at destroying small ranchers as part of a combined real estate and meat supply chain scam. You would need to read the book to understand more about how and for whom it works and why.

If these industries are pushed out of the state by healthcare requirements or other taxes aimed at business, then the cash cow goes east also.

I think it goes south, that is, South America. Soros is the largest ranching landowner in Argentina and the Rockefeller brothers are making similar investments in Brazil.

You think the businesses come here because of the great growing environment, and I think they are here because of what they can get out of the environment.

Well, you mischaracterize my stance which is a combination of many factors, some motivational, some political, and some historic.

And all the environment money being taken just goes away with the rest of the money. If you have nothing to spend, then reading the bills is worthless.

I think you misunderstand my thesis entirely. Please re-read what I said, and try the website.