Gov. Schwarzenegger is giving a speech right now at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, the kickoff of his campaign for the state budget items in the May 19 special election.  In some remarks released earlier, it’s clear Arnold is highlighting – and is most concerned about – the spending cap.

“Our state capital is a town that feeds on dysfunction. The special interests, left and right, need the process to be dysfunctional. That is how they control Sacramento. That is how they prevent change.”

[snip]

“But now we have an agreement, passed by two-thirds of the legislature, that puts on the ballot serious budget reform, including a spending limit and a rainy day fund.

“And the very interests, the far left and the far right, that prefer dysfunction over change have already launched a campaign to confuse people and defeat the reform. But this time they are not going to succeed.”

Arnold probably sees this as a selling point, that if Democrats are against his plan, and Republicans are against his plan, then it must be just right.  But this Goldilocks centrism masks the extremism of the spending cap plan, which would ratchet down revenues and cut vital services permanently.  It also represents a serious miscalculation on the part of the Governor, who apparently still thinks his post-partisan message actually works in this state.  That’s the same political genius that has Schwarzenegger polling worse than Carly Fiorina in potential 2010 Senate matchups against Barbara Boxer.  And even Schwarzenegger’s own strategists seem to know that he cannot be the public face of the special election, lest he doom it to failure.

Opponents of the measures say their private polling has shown linking the initiatives to the governor drives down support of the measures. That has been echoed by some supporters of the ballot measures, who have also started testing potential campaign messages.

But (campaign strategist) Adam Mendelsohn said Schwarzenegger’s star power and his ability to get news coverage is still a great asset for the campaign.

“There is no elected official in this state capable of dominating coverage like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The chattering class loves to look at his approval numbers and then cast dispersions, but communicating in a campaign is a lot more complex than just looking at approval numbers.”

Uh, yeah, Mr. Mendelsohn, that’s the PROBLEM.  He’s extremely unpopular with everyone but the Dan Weintraubs of the world.  And there aren’t 17 million Dan Weintraubs living here.

The spending cap, with something for everyone to hate, is particularly vulnerable in the special election.  Republicans have been calling for a hard cap for years, if not decades, but they’ve become so blinded by the Heads on a Stick faction of their party that they cannot look past the short-term of two years of tax increases and realize what they would be getting.  But the Yacht Party infantry clearly doesn’t care: heck, they’re trying to recall Roy Ashburn, who’s termed out in 2010 anyway.  So their entire side, or at least everyone who wants to be elected in a primary, is lining up against 1A.  Meg Whitman has come out against it.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has already announced her opposition to Proposition 1A, and Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak did not rule out the possibility that Whitman would spend money against the measure.

“She’s been very outspoken in her opposition to 1A,” Zak said. “We’ve not made a decision how that opposition manifests at this point. We’re keeping our options open.”

The Flash Report is claiming that Steve Poizner will oppose the measure as well, and he is hinting at contributing funding.

They will be joined by at least some segment of Assembly Democrats.

After a long, closed-door meeting Tuesday, Assembly Democrats remain divided over the budget-balancing ballot measure at the heart of the May 19 special election, Proposition 1A, which would impose a cap and raise taxes.

“Our caucus had a very long discussion on this,” Assembly Speaker Karen Bass told Capitol Weekly. “There are a number of members who are supportive of 1A, there are several members who are opposed to 1A, and there are many others who are trying to decide. We are working through this and we will have another caucus next week,” she said Tuesday evening.

Looks like Bass will have a lot more colleagues to boot out of committee assignments.  You’ll remember that she punished the three Democrats who actually voted against the spending cap on the floor back in February.  Now a good bit of the caucus is revolting.

The caucus did vote to support 1B through 1F, and that’s probably because they know that there’s going to be more cuts coming down the road, and voters opposing the revenue-enhancing items on the ballot will make their job harder.

But, she added, “I’m hearing that we are going to have a $4 billion dollar (revenue) hole, so if the ballot measures don’t pass, then it becomes  $9 billion or $10 billion hole.”

As I said, the crisis continues.

So I’m seeing the anti-tax groups, progressive advocates, the big money in the GOP, half the Assembly Democratic caucus, all against 1A.  On the pro side, Arnold, George Skelton, and Steve Westly, who says 1A will “instill much needed fiscal discipline”.  Yeah, poor people and the blind, get some fiscal discipline, you scumbags!

The wildcard remains the unions, who with even a little bit of financial backing could tip the scales on 1A.  SEIU and AFSCME have delayed formal positions until later this month.  But the Administration is trying to intimidate them into going along with it.

Here’s why it matters to state workers: Last week, the Association of California State Supervisors asked administration officials if the governor would still lay off employees, or if he would abandon the plan since lawmakers have passed a budget.

(Remember, state workers’ twice-monthly furlough is just part of how the governor wants to cut costs. Layoff warnings went to 20,000 of the state’s least senior employees last month. Half could lose their jobs, officials have said.)

The administration’s answer, from notes taken by an association representative: “We hope the five budget-related propositions pass … . If the propositions do not pass, we will be in a worse situation, with more furloughs and layoffs.”

This is despite the fact that 1A would have NO IMPACT whatsoever on the immediate bottom line; in fact, passing it would hurt the budget for state workers more than defeating it.  “Vote like your job depends on it… because it does.”  That must be the working motto.

The question is, will the intimidation work?  Obviously, the fact that the tax increase extensions in 1A are practically hidden on the ballot is going to arouse anger amongst the Heads on a Stick crowd.  And progressive advocates are sticking to principle that an artificial spending cap has failed wherever it’s been tried and is wrong for the state.  In the mythical middle you have the vain Mr. Schwarzenegger, desperately trying to stay relevant.  Ultimately, this is a referendum on him.

UPDATE: And here we go.  The League of Women Voters just announced they’re opposing 1A, along with 1C, 1D, and 1E (selling the lottery and moving money from voter-approved funds for children’s programs and mental health).  This is big if it’s a harbinger of how other groups will line up.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t governing by magazine cover, he’s governing by Sunday talk show.  This is a good venue for him, because nobody asking him questions has any idea what Arnold’s actually done to California, and he can spout off one-liners and talk the Beltway language of post-partisanship without rebuttal.  These kinds of interviews are never given to reporters in his home state, because they might actually have experience with his tenure and thus would be in position to know a lie when they see one.

For example, the Governor is getting a lot of ink for the line about how he’d be willing to take any stimulus money from any governor in the country who rejects it.  Less discussed is the essential falsehood present in this comment:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you — we’re looking at a similar budget crisis in the coming years here in the United States. Does the Republican Party have to re-think its absolute opposition to tax increases of any kind?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, no, I think that the Republican Party or any party has to always think, when you make a decision, “Do I want to make a decision that’s based — that’s best for the party? Or am I a public servant and have to serve the people, what is best for the people?”

And in this particular case, in order to solve a $42 billion deficit, the only way you can do that is a combination of making severe cuts and also having some revenue increases.

Really?  Arnold was “listening to the people” when he helped ram through a massive corporate tax cut, in a time of deficits, for large multinational corporations?  Show me the poll where the public was clamoring for a multinational corporate tax cut.  How about the poll where the public was desperate for waiving environmental laws regarding public works projects and delaying implementation of laws regulating diesel emissions?  Actually, the California public has spoken pretty profoundly that they want a serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I mean please.  This is a guy who campaigned almost entirely in 2003 on cutting the vehicle license fee, costing the state almost enough to fill this entire budget gap over 6 years, and now he’s raised it after admitting defeat.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is a born liar.  He has the interests of the California Chamber of Commerce and anything but the people of California.  That’s why he refuses to engage with them or their elected representatives, preferring to float above it all and run to the national media with false tropes about “serving the people.”  Forget just apologizing to Gray Davis, he should abdicate to him.

This last bit from John Myers was amusing:

And in non-governor news, he confirmed an interest in a cameo appearance in an upcoming Sylvester Stallone flick, picked Mickey Rourke to win an Oscar, and said The Candidate was his favorite political flick. That movie is an interesting choice, given it’s about a candidate who’s so focused on winning — rather than governing– that after his victory famously says: “What do we do now?”

Exactly.

Remember, the Governor said that he had a plan to fix the state’s health care system in October, 2006.  He said he’d tell everyone about it after the election.  ONE YEAR LATER, Schwarzenegger announced at a big press conference yesterday that the bill is almost ready.  It’s not a bill being carried to the Legislature by anyone, at least not yet, although I expect the leadership will bring it along just to have something to negotiate against.  But this is a complete waste of time and energy, to wait 12 months to present something that has no earthly hope of passing.  And paying for it, in part, by privatizing the lottery, which is a long-term money-loser for California.

I mean, this is ridiculous:

Every time he was asked about the numbers, he revealed that this proposal is still a ways from being fully cooked, starting with this response to a question about the financing of the bill–where the money comes from: “This is our proposal. We think that’s the best way to go. But this is not final because it is still being negotiated. A lot of this stuff is still being negotiated.”

Counting on money from the Feds seems tricky to me, given the veto of SCHIP by President Bush. That will leave a gaping hole as far as children’s coverage, and paying for it, are concerned.

When asked about affordability and what Californians at different income levels would have to pay out of pocket, he said: “Well first of all, the numbers that I have given you–this is our proposal. So these are not the final numbers. Because like I said, with the numbers, those things are still being discussed–what the numbers should be.” Maybe we should be happy that the exact shape and form of affordability, a key part of the bill, are not yet written in stone. With an individual mandate, that seems to me to be an area to really scrutinize.

There’s a summary of the plan, which ISN’T THE FINAL PLAN SO DON’T CRITICIZE IT, at the link.  It seems to me that the deal here is to try and avoid all specifics so there can be absolutely no discussion about the biggest domestic issue facing the state and the nation, so Arnold can evade all responsibility for whatever transpires until the moment he signs a bill, at which point it’s entirely because of his leadership.

That’s post-partisan, baby.

He subscribes to the real 11th Commandment of the GOP: Do as I say, not as I do.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger demanded Thursday that the 2008 presidential candidates stake out clear positions on domestic issues Californians care about — such as immigration, climate change and health care — instead of focusing solely on the Iraq war […]

It was Schwarzenegger who ran in the 2003 recall race on a campaign of largely broad-stroke ideas, saying he would repair the state budget, ensure that “everyone in California has a fantastic job” and sweep out special interests from the Capitol.

And last year, as he ran for re-election, he pledged to tackle health care reform but offered few specific ideas on what he would propose.

over…

It’s very refreshing to see Mark Martin at the Chronicle notice this.  Schwarzenegger pretty much INVENTED content-free campaigning.  For him to make this kind of speech, petulantly asking Presidential candidates for specifics, is nothing short of deranged.  Arnold doesn’t even have the courage to get his own health care proposal introduced in the Legislature.  Most of the “big ideas” that he’s actually managed to pass weren’t his, he merely acquiesced to them.

This is as stupid as Newt Gingrich decrying negative campaigning and attack-dog politics.  Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire short political career has been devoted to sloganeering and hiding the hidden truth.  Now he wants everyone else to be detailed… everyone but himself.

I think I threw up in my mouth a little when I read the headline of the L.A. Times ‘news analysis’ this morning:

Governor may be selling an illusion of unity

This is news? You mean some people actually thought “post-partisanship” was, like, real?

The conclusion of the article:

conditions are ripe for the kind of partisan clash that Schwarzenegger says is vanishing.

More…

As contemptuous as we are of Arnold’s “post-partisan” nonsense, the article casts Republicans as the biggest opponents of the governor’s invented style of fake governance:

Post-partisanship, said a rueful state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) “is the process by which Arnold sits down with Democratic leaders and gets them to do exactly what they wanted to do all along.”

And…

“A lot of the large goals accomplished last year didn’t feel bipartisan to us,” said Michael Villines (R-Clovis), leader of the Assembly’s Republicans. “It just felt like we got steamrolled.”

Certainly, Republican support was scant among the three accomplishments the article cites as Arnold’s pillars of “post-partisanship”: “a multibillion-dollar public works project, a plan for cutting prescription drug prices and a program to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.”

But the state’s elected Democrats aren’t exactly doing a jig either.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), who voted for the environmental bill last year, now says the market-based carbon-trading system the state adopted won’t do enough to curb global warming.

And…

On his recent trip to Washington, the governor met with the state’s congressional delegation to discuss ways to get more federal money for California and to urge members of both parties to work together…U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) said the meeting yielded little in the way of concrete accomplishment; she described it as more cosmetic than substantive.

In other words, despite the fact that Schwarzenegger plans to tour the country over the next year touting the unifying nature of “post-partisanship,” the governor has actually managed to alienate both Democrats AND Republicans.

So I guess the MSM deserves kudos for noticing and reporting what we’ve known for a while: that “post-partisanship” is merely Arnold v.3.0, a role he’s playing based not on some core principle of above-the-partisan-fray governance, but rather on political calculation.

national political analysts said Schwarzenegger’s style could be tough to export. Few Republicans elected in classic “red” states see the need to accommodate Democrats in ways that Schwarzenegger has felt necessary in his “blue” state.

“If you’re in a solid red state, I don’t think you have to do that,” said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania.

The key words in those paragraphs: “need” and “have to.” “Post-partisanship” IS politics, reflecting the political reality that governors of one party who run a state dominated by the other party have known forever. It’s just that no one before has so brazenly claimed it as his own and felt the need to brag about it.

But then again Arnold is unique; he knows how beneficial it is to one’s career when a sequel does better than the original.

I seem to be picking on Fabian Nuñez in spite of myself, but this kind of behavior is pretty weak for an opposition leader in the Legislature.  It plays into the myth of Democrats as wishy-washy cowards without the courage of their convictions, and it eliminates the aspect of contrast that is central to provide to voters so they can make an informed choice.  Nuñez saying that the Governor appeared to talk down to leaders in Washington was merely an opinion; immediately going back on it suggests a palpable fear of even having one.  Why are Nuñez and his aides so desirous of staying in the Governor’s good graces that they feel compelled to say this?

“The speaker and the governor continue to have a great working relationship as well as a deep respect for each other. It would be extremely unfortunate if a series of quotes in response to questions about Senator Feinstein, the governor, and their styles would be used to characterize any conflict or disagreements between them.”

over…

Bob Salladay is dead-on right in saying that the Governor himself has no problem denying the same courtesy to Nuñez:

Heaven forfend that one of the girlie men in the Legislature – which is run by “evil” public employee unions and “a really weird, very sick man,” and should be turned part time because it produces too many silly bills – should say something impolitic about Schwarzenegger. But why dwell on the past?!

Why is there this seeming 11th Commandment in the Legislature of “thou shalt not speak ill of the Governor” when he exhibits the exact opposite behavior?  And Nuñez’ initial comment was not even something worth apologizing for – he was just saying what he would do differently in regards to dealing with Washington.  And he said post-partisanship is “some word (Arnold) made up.”  Which it clearly is.  Democrats and Republicans don’t come together in this state; Democrats and a governor up for re-election did, with absolutely no support from any Republicans in the Senate or Assembly.

What’s wrong with saying that?  Is Nuñez afraid he won’t get access to the smoking tent now?

California Democrats appear not to understand that their role is to advocate for the constituents that elected them.  I’m not asking for a food fight every two seconds, but if you do stick out your neck and make a statement, there’s no need to immediately clean it up.  It looks like you’re chasing the polls.  It looks like you can’t defend your beliefs.  It looks like… well, it certainly doesn’t look like leadership.