Daily Archives: February 26, 2006

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Schwarzenegger/McClintock 2006 Replays Bush/Cheney 2000

1 Comment

Schwarzenegger 2006 is shaping up to look like Bush 2000, complete with compassionate conservative rhetoric from the top of ticket for the general population and hardcore Republican firebreathing from the #2 slot. And here’s why I make that prediction:

Typically in California, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor don’t campaign as running mates — but you’d never guess it by watching Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock lately.

The 2006 campaign is still young, but Schwarzenegger, the incumbent governor seeking an uncertain re-election, and McClintock, a state senator from Ventura County running for lieutenant governor, look very much like a tag team.

Personal friendship — and political necessity — have forged an alliance between the two that mirrors a presidential-vice presidential slate, with each shoring up the other’s weaknesses.

Schwarzenegger helps boost McClintock’s visibility and fundraising ability. McClintock, in turn, has recently rushed in to aid Schwarzenegger by tamping down trouble from his right flank.

Schwarzenegger is Bush, McClintock is Cheney. We all know exactly how compassionate the Bush brand of conservatism has been, and hopefully we will all remember how aggressively Schwarzenegger pushed the extremist Republican agenda in last year’s special election. If you want to know what another Schwarzenegger administration would look like, listen to McClintock’s campaign, not Schwarzenegger.

More on this topic later this week.

Uncategorized

The Governator on Meet The Press

2 Comments

Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on Meet the Press (video available) today (Sunday, February 26, 2006). 

Russert began by asking about some national issues of note, port security, Iraq, and national guard issues.  He was extremely evasive.  I don’t think he actually answered any of Russert’s questions. He responded to a question about National Guard by issuing a warning about the Delta’s levees: (MTP 2/26/06 (tip: multi-page article, try clicking on “print” and reading there))

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that the Guard is not going to be ready for the floods, for the earthquake because of the shrinking numbers?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I am not concerned about that. I am concerned that we are not acting fast enough to rebuild our levees. Because our levee system is 100 years old, and we have levees that were built 100 years ago by farmers. We don’t even know what they were built of. I think that they’re unsafe. They’re worse and worse conditions than the ones in New Orleans. And I think it is irresponsible for us not to act quickly, and this is why I declared an emergency and also asked the federal government and federal disaster to declare federal disaster in order to get the money as quickly as possible, in order to make the legislators respond as quickly as possible. Because there’s thousands of people that are vulnerable. Thousands of homes and the farms and everything like this. We could have a worse disaster than New Orleans. So I’m concerned about that, that we’re not really doing enough to protect the people. Because that’s our ultimate job.

Now, when it comes to the National Guard, I think that we have to just do everything possible. Remember it’s war time. People feel more reluctant to join because they don’t want to be sent over, maybe, to Iraq. So it is a difficult moment, but I think it’s something that is doable, and we always just have to work together on this.

Well, I’m VERY strongly in favor of increasing the visibility of the levee issue (both before and after Katrina).  But, he didn’t address the critical issue of whether our National Guard is prepared to respond to disasters in our state.  We are losing National Guardsmen a lot faster than we are replacing them, and he responds by highlighting the disasters for which we need them?  Yes!! We need them, we all agree with that.  But where are they coming from? Arnold has no thoughts on that.

More on the flip…

Also quite interesting?  His new opinion of campaign finance:

MR. RUSSERT: But you said when you ran at first, “I don’t need to take money from anybody.” But you’re going to be raising thousands and thousands of thousand dollars from people who do business and have contracts with the state government.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I want to correct you. I said I would never take money from unions, that I would never take money from Indian gaming tribes. I take money because you need to take money. The important thing here is, is when you take money that they buy into your philosophy and into your program, that you don’t buy into theirs. And that you never can be bought, that’s the most important thing.

So, it’s okay to take corporate funds, but not from unions and Tribal concerns.  So, wow, he must be really holy, now that it’s okay to take money from all the people that he takes money from.  It must be really bad to be a Democrat and have to take all that tainted union money.  C’mon, this is a ridiculous argument.  Yes, campaign finance is FUBAR, but what do you plan on doing about it?  Well, Arnold plans on selling to the RIGHT bidder, as long as the donor is anti-labor and anti-Indian gaming.

There are a bunch of other interesting quotes in there about his polling numbers and his spending habits.  A worthwile watch (or listen), especially now that you can watch online or download the podcast. (Good Job NBC!!!)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[From NCP] Schwarzenegger’s Broke, so Faking Sincerity

[Originally posted 2/2/06 at NorCal Politics]

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign fund is $400K in the hole. He did it to himself, when he decided that he wanted to force his power-grabbing initiatives into the special election last November:

While Democrats and other Schwarzenegger opponents continue to complain about the millions of dollars last November’s special election cost California, the governor may have paid the biggest price. While Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team was raising and spending more than $45 million in the markedly unsuccessful effort to pass his package of initiatives, the governor’s re-election campaign was put on hold.

“Except for one dinner in Los Angeles, everything we did last year went into the special election,” Wilson said. “We really only began to raise money for the re-election last month.”

Schwarzenegger’s opponents spent at least $60 million against the initiatives, the finance reports showed.

One also notes that by one estimate, it cost the counties of California some $54 million for Governor Schwarzenegger’s failed putsch-by-initiative. Those are your dollars and mine, folks. Thanks, Governor!

So, I expect that nominal poverty is part of the reason for Schwarzenegger’s newfound humility and moderation. I’m thinking it’s a put-on, though. Does anyone seriously believe that Schwarzenegger has a humble bone in his body?

In that vein, note that Schwarzenegger recently hired two Bush-Cheney lieutenants to run his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. So, one should expect slash-and-burn politics, probably run largely through proxies, while Schwarzenegger plays the compassionate conservative. I’m placing my bet now: Schwarzenegger 2006 will look like Bush 2000, with some Swift-Boating of his Democratic opponent thrown in.

I’m curious as to whether Angelides / Westly will be prepared for savage, generally dishonest attacks right at what they think of (and they poll as) as their strengths. That’s a hallmark of Republican campaign strategy for the last decade. One hopes that California Dems won’t be as gormless as national Dems in dealing with entirely predictable Republican behavior.

Uncategorized

Tough Questions For John Doolittle

The Sacramento Bee asks a couple of tough question of Representative John Doolittle (CA-4).

Where does zeal to help friends from all corners of the nation leave the mass of his constituents – people who aren’t his friends, but are owed his time and representation? How does he square his notions of limited government with his willingness to open the federal trough to a favored few?

Today’s editorial describes how Doolittle was unfailing in his support of “friends” such as Jack Abramoff and Brent Wilkes. In fact, considering Doolittle’s crusade for limited government, the Bee editorialist admits confusion over Doolittle’s willingness to lavish federal tax dollars on his “friends.”

Two things stand out in Doolittle’s Feb. 18 interview with The Bee’s David Whitney. One is his view of politics as a matter of friends helping friends. The other is that while he professes a “philosophy of limited government,” he is willing to help his friends prosper through congressionally earmarked government contracts.

[…]

He is particularly revealing about his friendship with Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to fraud, public corruption and tax evasion: “And if you had a friend who was a lobbyist like that and he liked you, he was able to procure quite a bit of support for you from the clients he represented. So I was in the fortunate position then of benefiting from his friendship and his willingness to help me.”

[…]

Doolittle is shameless in going out of his way to seek federal government handouts for his friends. Here’s an example from the interview. Through lobbyist Ed Buckham, Doolittle met Brent Wilkes, who specializes in using his lobbyist and congressional connections to seek defense contracts. Doolittle was impressed that Wilkes was “quite the Republican” and toured Wilkes’ new business headquarters in San Diego.

[…]

Doolittle has been the beneficiary of political contributions from Wilkes, his family and business partners. Doolittle has supported government appropriations for Wilkes’ projects. For one of Wilkes’ companies, PerfectWave, Doolittle helped win earmarks worth $37 million for a technology not requested by the military. Doolittle tried to get a House contract for digital document conversion for another Wilkes company, ADCS.


On Friday Doolittle announced his intention to run for his 9th term in congress. If he is lucky, not all of his “friends” will have been indicted by Election Day.