Tom McClintock is certainly not one known to hold his tongue for any reason, but he’s let it all hang out with his feelings about the GOP nominee for Governor, Meg Whitman.
McClintock went on, “If it comes down to a choice between Arnold Schwarzenegger’s third term with Meg Whitman, or Jerry Brown’s third term with Jerry Brown, anyway you cut it, it’s going to be a long four years.” (SacBee)
I can’t say I really blame him, but this is all rather public. And he doesn describe the situation rather fairly. The best the GOP, or the state really, can hope for from Meg Whitman is four more years of Arnold Schwarzenegger-style governance. And really, it’s hard to think of any ways that Meg is either more capable or more knowledgeable about the problems than our current Governor.
On a side note, if somebody asked me ten years ago whether I thought I would ever write the sentence above (about a CEO of a major corporation not being more knowledgeable than a former action movie star), I would have laughed. But such is the situation that we find ourselves in.
As for the second clause of McClintock’s analysis, well, Jerry Brown would be Jerry Brown part III. Now, while he had to spend much of his second term trying to patch together a system of governance that could last a few years in the wake of Prop 13, his record is really rather positive. Sure, that Prop 13 is a bit of a downer, but he managed to somehow build a system that lasted nearly 25 years before it really broke under the weight of the super majority requirements.
But, all in all, I’m with Tom. Why would California want another term of Arnold Schwarzenegger?
I have to agree with Mr. McClintock that Ms. Whitman’s “platform” reminds me a good deal of the one Mr. Schwarzenegger advanced–and failed with. They also seem to share an outsized vanity streak and a propensity to threaten tantrums.
Schwarzenegger, though, appears to at least couple these deficits with some charm, personality, and a sense of humor. As his position on prop. 8 shows, he’s capable of some flexibility. I’m told that, like George W. Bush, he can be fairly likable. I’ve heard nothing of the sort about Whitman. In fact, just the opposite. All of which could make for a VERY long four years.
I have many gripes with Schwarzenegger, as we all do, but he’s way better than Whitman. First, it probably helped that he didn’t have to go through a closed Republican Primary to become governor, which Meg now has. But let’s look at the substance. Whitman wants to suspend AB 32, while Arnold has been, for the most part, supportive of AB 32. Arnold supported high speed rail, Meg doesn’t. Arnold never signed a no-new-taxes pledge; Meg has. Arnold, unfortunately, did break records with veto ratios, but Meg insists that he didn’t use the veto, to quash good ideas and improvements in public policy, nearly enough. Meg wants to reduce the # of state employees, from what Arnold has maintained, by 40,000. Arnold cared enough about California, before becoming Governor, to work on a voter initiative; Meg didn’t care enough to vote. Meg, driven by ego, probably just wants to be president; Arnold knew the Constitution would not let him become President, so that wasn’t an issue for him. Arnold opposed Prop 8, Whitman supported Prop 8. All in all, Whitman is far worse than Arnold. I think having to go through a closed Republican Primary has at least a little to do with that. But whatever the reason, she’s way worse and I hope she goes the way of Prop 16.