Posted on 01/21/2008 11:08:50 AM PST by NormsRevenge
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER has rushed to the defense of some of the "girlie men" he once wanted booted from Sacramento.
It's an indicator of how far the one-time backer of strict term limits has come in understanding Capitol dynamics and how badly he needs the cooperation of lawmakers to help carve out his legacy in his final three years in office.
During the summer of 2004, the then-freshman governor, frustrated with the Legislature's failure to pass a budget, accused lawmakers of doing the bidding of unions and trial lawyers -- and encouraged voters to "terminate" their representatives at the polls if they failed to pass a spending plan.
"I call them girlie men," he said. "They should get back to the table, and they should finish the budget."
The comment was a reference to an old "Saturday Night Live" skit parodying Schwarzenegger, in which anyone without a muscular frame is dismissed as a "girlie man." It, understandably, offended feminists and gay and lesbian leaders. It also angered and alienated lawmakers, who didn't appreciate the governor's my-way-or-the-highway approach.
A very different Schwarzenegger appeared Tuesday at a meeting with writers and editors from the Times and San Jose Mercury News. Just the night before, he had announced his support for Proposition 93 on the Feb. 5 ballot, which would change the state's term limit law.
Under the measure, legislators, who can currently serve 14 years -- eight in the Senate and six in the assembly -- would be limited to 12 years, but they could all be served in one house. Under the most controversial part of the measure, current legislators could serve 12 years in their present legislative house, regardless of how many years they already served in the other one.
That would give new life to every legislator blocked this year from seeking another term, including Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles.
In an essay posted on the Los Angeles Times Web site Monday night, Schwarzenegger concluded that the ballot measure "would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature."
In San Jose on Tuesday, the governor further extended an empathetic hand of support to the incumbent lawmakers. Certainly, it's not the first time that we have seen flashes of the governor's bipolar relationship with the Assembly and Senate, but it was a reflective moment that provided insight into how Schwarzenegger's thinking has evolved.
"I just feel that the experience that I've gotten while I was in Sacramento is that the special interests and the lobbyists just know much more than the legislators do," he said as he explained his decision to back Prop. 93.
"That is largely because there's just no one almost left, but a few people, that have been there for a long time. And other than that, there's all these young people coming in and they have been spun around.
There's no way they have a chance against these very experienced lobbyists and professionals in Sacramento. ... We're talking about really talented people that represent the companies better than our legislators can represent the people."
Facing a daunting agenda this year -- bridging a $14.5 billion budget shortfall while reforming health care, education, the budget process, water delivery and the state's redistricting process -- Schwarzenegger was blunt that he did not want to deal with a bunch of new faces.
"We've just gotten into a good groove with Speaker Nunez where we trust each other, with Senator Perata and with Senator Ackerman. ... There is suddenly developing a rhythm ... that we've worked on for many years now to get to that point." If Prop. 93 fails, he said, "those guys will all be out and I will now have to start fresh, and it will take me another two years to really get everyone to that level again."
That's the argument that term-limit critics have been making since voters approved the restrictions in 1990.
We've created a system in which legislators are more concerned with advancing to the next political post than mastering policy areas so they can be effective lawmakers.
In backing Prop. 93, Schwarzenegger is protecting Nunez and Perata, the very people opponents are trying to demonize. Some say the governor backed the measure in exchange for support of his health care package -- a charge Schwarzenegger denies.
The governor had earlier said he would not support the ballot measure unless redistricting reform was part of the package. That, he now says, will come later.
And it "doesn't mean we should make them (legislators) all leave now because we couldn't get the redistricting done. Because that wouldn't help me to move the agenda forward for California," he said.
He doesn't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. It's the sign of a seasoned politician.
and how badly he needs the cooperation of lawmakers to help carve out his legacy in his final three years in office.
I do believe that his legacy is already made ...
.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, third left, speaks during a press conference joined by Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, left, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a new coalition 'Building America's Future' was announced, under a freeway overpass in Los Angeles, Saturday,Jan. 19, 2008. The coalition would push for more investment in ports, highways and other infrastructure. ( AP Photo/Ann Johansson)
Rush is going to love this one. By becoming an avowed leftist Arnold has “grown” in office.
Shows how the Gropinator really is a demoncRAT.
Bustamante!
I am for term limits. The stricter the better.
I am for divided government. The more partisan the divide the better.
As I grow older I am becoming more and more convinced that the more paralyzed government is the better it is for all of us.
Benadict Ahnuld.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter who is governor of California. The “Golden State” is an ungovernable nightmare, and the state needs a total overhaul that is nearly impossible to envisage thanks to the entrenchment of special interests and the demographic shifts of the last 30 years that would prevent any such reform. California has a constitutionally weak governorship, it’s overwhelmingly dominated by a leftist legislature, and its budget is a bloated, practically self-aware entity. Automatic spending driven by sweetheart public service employee union contracts and an out of control initiative process that adds billions upon billions of mandated spending every election cycle makes California a ticking time bomb that when it finally crumbles, has the power to affect the national economy.
I don’t know if Bustamante could count to 145 billion,, maybe it would have hurt a little bit less if he was the one sticking the knife in the back of the tax-paying citizens of California and their kids well into the future by laying a massive amount of debt to be repaid,, and more is going to be asked for.. it’s madness.. on our dime.
The Kennedys have done a thorough job of further liberalizing the Governator. Gray Davis would be proud of his record.
Man, Rush sounds rough.. bad cigar, gift from aRnie?
the one thing that has grown is the stench from StinkyMento , the manurium par non, Rome in its declining days would be proud of the lefties and all their “successes” the last few years.
ungovernable? oh yeah
There have been proposals to split the state into as many as five smaller states over the years,, all have failed..
Paralyzed gov’t is very good indeed, but it’s next-best to shrinking or slaying the monster eating us alive. How about a state legislature that meets biannually for 4 months? That would really limit the damage they can do.
Oh absolutely! The same goes for Congress.
I've been convinced of that for a long time now. I guess I must be older than you, lol.
Very true although the Gov. does have considerable influence -- much more than exhibited by SchwarzenKennedy. Big city leftists control the legislature and many key executive positions. Electing Moonbeam Brown the state's top lawyer was a disaster in the making.
Automatic spending driven by sweetheart public service employee union contracts and an out of control initiative process that adds billions upon billions of mandated spending every election cycle makes California a ticking time bomb that when it finally crumbles, has the power to affect the national economy.
I used to believe the people were smart enough to govern themselves. After living in CA for 25 years I no longer believe that. If given the choice between cinching their belts tighter temporarily for the public good vs. voting themselves more goodies from the Treasury, they'll take Choice #2 every time, the future be damned.
Totally agree with you.
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.