CA: Governor targets long list of propositions on weekend bus tour

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - Fresh off a high-profile campaign trip to Ohio for President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger returned to California for a final weekend of campaigning before Tuesday's election.

The governor began a two-day bus tour of the state Saturday by speaking out about several of the 16 initiatives on the California ballot. He drew some of the most emotional responses when criticizing Proposition 66, an initiative that seeks to amend the state's "three-strikes" sentencing law.

Critics of the initiative said it would allow thousands of violent offenders to be freed from the state prison system.

"Proposition 66 is a bad idea," he told a rally in Anaheim, where the audience booed to show their disapproval of the measure. "It would let thousands of child molesters, rapists and murderers out of our prisons and into your neighborhoods."

The initiative would alter the 10-year-old three-strikes law, which mandates a 25 years-to-life sentence for anyone who has been convicted of two serious or violent felonies and is then convicted of a third felony, even if it's for a nonviolent offense.

Critics of the law say it has led to long prison terms for people who do not pose a serious threat to society. Earlier polls showed a solid majority of voters favoring the effort to soften the law, but a late surge in anti-initiative advertising and campaigning has eroded that support.

Schwarzenegger has begun running television ads opposing it, while law enforcement officers and district attorneys across the state have begun speaking out against it.

A Field Poll released Saturday showed support for Proposition 66 at 55 percent, but that represents a dramatic drop from just a few weeks ago when nearly two-thirds of voters favored the measure.

The measure would shorten the list of felonies that trigger the third "strike," removing crimes such as making criminal threats and robbing an unoccupied residence. It also would make inmates eligible for resentencing if their third strike wasn't a serious or violent crime.

Schwarzenegger has said the measure would "favor the criminals instead of the victims."

The governor's bus tour began in Del Mar in north San Diego County, before heading to Anaheim and then Bakersfield, where he was to attend a barbecue sponsored by Republican congressman Bill Thomas. He planned to visit Redding and the east San Francisco Bay area city of Pleasanton on Sunday.

In previous weeks, Schwarzenegger has invested most of his political capital in trying to defeat Propositions 68 and 70, ballot measures that would expand the scope of casino gambling in the state.

Recent polls show both measures facing likely defeat, allowing the governor to focus his attention on other initiatives.

"There is a wrong way to vote and a right way to vote," Schwarzenegger told a boisterous rally in Anaheim. "You have to vote the right way."

With so many measures on the ballot, several voters said they are looking toward the governor's positions to help them decide how to cast their votes.

"But for Arnold Schwarzenegger, I wouldn't know about Proposition 66 and what a deceitful campaign it's been," said San Diego resident Jill Fisher, who attended the Del Mar event.

"I really wanted to see him and know where he stands," said Frances Gangitano, who attended the rally with her husband. "He has enormous presence. I love the man - I hope that one day he can be president."

In Anaheim and Del Mar, Schwarzenegger ticked through the list of propositions included on a brightly colored voter guide mailed earlier this month to 5 million households in the state, most of them going to registered Republicans.

Among the initiatives he favors: Proposition 1A to protect revenue for local government; Proposition 64, which would limit unfair competition lawsuits; and Proposition 69, which would create a DNA databank for accused and convicted felons.

Besides Proposition 66, Schwarzenegger is urging a no vote on Proposition 72, which would require medium- and large-sized employers to provide health coverage for workers. He has said such a requirement will be a drain on the state's businesses at a time when California is trying to retain jobs and attract new companies.

"Prop. 72 would force many Californians into one huge government bureaucracy. It will drive businesses away from California and cost many jobs," he said in Del Mar.

Schwarzenegger acknowledged problems with the nation's health care system but said, "You don't want to solve one big mess with another big mess."

Left off his list was mention of Proposition 71, which would direct the state to borrow $3 billion to fund stem cell research. Schwarzenegger has endorsed the measure against the wishes of the state Republican Party, which spent $2 million to print and mail the voter guides.

Aides said the governor was not concerned about his influence being diluted because he was taking stands on so many of the ballot propositions.

"He has a position on those initiatives and wanted voters to know, but there's an emphasis on certain issues to prevent the dilution from taking place," said the governor's communications director, Rob Stutzman.

Schwarzenegger will continue touring the state on Monday, when his campaigning will focus on supporting Republicans in state legislative races.

Tom McClintock on the California Propositions from:
www.TomMcClintocl.com

I've been getting a lot of calls about the various ballot propositions.

Here's how I see them:

1A. Watered Down Protection for Local Governments. YES, I suppose. Extends limited protection to local governments against future raids by the state AFTER the state finishes ripping off another $2.6 billion over the next two years. I support it because the protections are a slight improvement over existing law, but if you really want to protect local governments, Prop. 65 is the ticket.

59. Public Records, Open Meetings. YES. Louis Brandeis said it best: "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants." Public business should be public. Period.

60. The Right to the Party of Your Choice. YES. This measure guarantees all parties access to the general election ballot, and was written to knock out Prop. 62.

60A. Selling Long-term Assets for Short-term Spending. NO. Sounds good on the surface - sell surplus state property to pay for general fund spending. Here's my problem: when surplus assets are sold - and they should be - the
funds should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. For example, Caltrans land was paid for by highway taxes. When it's sold, it should be used to build highways, not pay for this year's welfare increase.

61. Children's Hospitals Bond. NO. Our borrowing is out of control - general fund supported debt is up 54 percent in 14 months. No matter how appealing the purpose, California needs to stop borrowing until it has brought its credit card binge under control.

62. Election Primaries. NO. They call it an "Open Primary," but what this really does is to trade California's primary election system for a two-step
general election. The result: the power to determine the official party nominee is taken away from the voters in the primary and returned to backroom political bosses. A giant step backward from clean and open elections.

63. Soak the Rich - And Then Us. NO. An extra tax on those making over $1 million might sound good to the rest of us - but beware. California's taxes are already so disproportionate that the top 1Ú4 of 1 percent of income
taxpayers pays nearly one third of all income taxes. It doesn't take many of them re-arranging their affairs to claim residency in Nevada (where there is NO income tax), before there's a dramatic reduction in tax revenues. And
guess who they'll tax then?

64. Honest Work for Lawyers. YES. Puts an end to predatory law firms that extort money by filing huge lawsuits against employers for technical violations of law. About time.

65. Real Local Government Protection. YES. A lost cause - the proponents have abandoned this measure in favor of Prop. 1A - but if you believe in protecting local government funds from continued raids by the state, this is
the measure that will do so.

66. Weakens Three Strikes Law. NO. Under current law, in order to qualify for a third strike, you have to be convicted TWICE before for VIOLENT felonies. This bill requires the THIRD strike also be a violent felony.
Call me prudish, but after a thug has been twice convicted of raping, assaulting and murdered his fellow citizens, I'm out of patience. California's Three Strikes Law works. Don't weaken it.

67. Phone Tax. NO. A half-billion tax increase - about $60 a year for an average family in both direct taxes and tax-driven price increases. Who says talk is cheap?

68. Casino Grande. NO. I don't believe it's any of government's business how grown-ups chose to spend their time and money as long as they're not hurting anyone. But I object to the extortionate provisions of the measure
that would force Indian tribes to accept outlandish conditions or face financial ruin.

69. DNA Samples. YES. Requires DNA samples to be taken from all felons and criminal suspects. It means that violent crimes will become much easier to solve - and with far greater certainty than ever before. It will give "Cold
Case Files" lots of new material.

70. De-politicize Tribal Gaming. YES. Provides a standard gaming compact for any legitimate Indian tribe that asks for it, assessing the corporate tax rate while restoring a free market to operations on Indian land. It would remove gaming from the tortured political environment that now has
pitted tribe against tribe in winning monopoly franchises. A standardized system is the best protection against the unjust political favoritism that we're seeing today.

71. Stem Cell Research. NO. Stem cell research is a promising field, but why are California taxpayers suddenly responsible for funding research for the rest of the world? Worse, any discussion of research data when making
research grants is exempt from the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. Want to know what your $3 billion has bought? Sorry, that's confidential.

72. Health Care Coverage. NO. Here's a great idea. Require every business with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance.

My guess: a lot of businesses with between 20 and 40 employees will suddenly have 19 -and an awful lot of folks will be without health care OR jobs. We're from the government and we're here to help.

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.