This graphic never gets old!
Courtesy of Strange Cosmos
Posted on 05/29/2006 10:02:56 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is attempting a political comeback as he faces reelection this year, courting Democrats and independent voters by distancing himself from President Bush and pushing an expensive bond proposal to rebuild California's levees, schools and highways.
Schwarzenegger, one of the nation's most prominent Republicans, has criticized Bush's plan to dispatch the National Guard to the Mexican border. He has appointed Democrats to key state jobs. In recent weeks, he helped engineer a bipartisan compromise to get the $37 billion bond proposal on the November ballot, traveling the state with Democratic legislative leaders to promote it. And he has embraced other causes popular with California's Democratic voters, including an increase in the minimum wage and a cap on greenhouse gases.
Last November, Schwarzenegger's fortunes looked grim. California's voters handed him a stunning loss in a special election that would have changed several state laws and given him more political power.
That election night, Schwarzenegger vowed to change and to show voters that "I am not to the right or left, that I just see things best for California."
Since then he has courted the public-service unions that exert enormous influence on California politics and that had spent millions to try to defeat his plans. Schwarzenegger has tried to smooth relations with the California Nurses Association, whose demonstrators dogged him at public appearances last year, by dropping his quest to overturn state nurse-patient ratios.
Buoyed by an additional $5 billion in tax revenue, he has pledged to increase education spending by billions of dollars, hoping to patch strained ties with the California Teachers Association. And he has put off a significant overhaul of California's troubled prison system, leading the California Correctional Peace Officers Association to delay plans to open a $10 million war chest for attack ads against him.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning toward the Switchman. :-)
They weren't conservative at all, FO. And you know it. His own Finance chief said they wouldn't control spending. In fact, with all of this "new unexpected revenue", do you know what his proposition would have done? It would have just about guaranteed that we spend even MORE in the future.
No we don't have to choose Arnold. There are several other republicans running in the primary, vote for one of them! I did. Get rid of this left leaning wind bag who can only talk big and not actually do anything or stand by his principles. I am tired of republicans caving in with the excuse about "being better than a democrat" when there really is no difference in a RINO and a Dem. As for the idiotic statement in the article that independents will go for dems, I don't believe it since a good number of them are libertarians.
Except Pat Brown did it without indebting the state to enormous amounts of money until kingdom come. Schwarzenegger wants to do it by big-time BORROWING and selling off state interests to public-private partnerships.
LOL! Just because you'd rather stay blind to reality doesn't mean there is "NOTHING to back up" my assertions. To wit:
distanced himself from President Bush
criticized Bush's plan to dispatch the National Guard to the Mexican border
appointed Democrats to key state jobs
helped engineer a bipartisan compromise to get the $37 billion bond proposal on the November ballot
embraced...an increase in the minimum wage
embraced...a cap on greenhouse gases
pledged to increase education spending by billions of dollars
put off a significant overhaul of California's troubled prison system
replaced his chief of staff, Patricia Clarey, a veteran Republican, with Susan Kennedy, a Democrat and abortion-rights advocate who served as chief of staff for former governor Gray Davis
named Linda Adams, a longtime Democratic aide, to head the state's Environmental Protection Agency
And those are just from this article. Did you even bother to read it before ignorantly claiming that I don't have the facts on my side?
Of course he/she/it* didn't read the article. Adding to your list, see Post #36, also from the article.
*FO, since you won't acknowledge your sex, how should we refer to you?
Another good one is the Vodka Bottle - "Absolut Liberal".
I wish I had bookmarked it.
I am disappointed in the direction the Governor has taken on environmental regulation. Resource users are under attack in my county by regulators forcing impossible demands under the California Endangered Species Act, Porter Colgne Water Quality Act, Air Quality, and new fire regulations.
The latest is the State Water Resources Control Board eleventh hour attempt, at the urging of a faction of radical and extreme environmentalists, to seize pre and post-1914 adjudicated water use rights for flows for salmon. This is not even supported by the recommendations and scientific review (CEQA) for the TMDL by the regional Board. It is also an out and out taking of private property for public use without just compensation. In addition, the adjudication clearly places jurisdiction with the Superior Court.
Things are far worse than they ever were under Davis. The Governor has failed to appoint rational Republicans to Agencies and Boards and insists on appointing extreme environmentalists. I don't know if it is intentional, but what they will end up accomplishing is the subdivision and development of thousands of acres of productive farmland from folks who can not possibly comply with their demands. Heck, our County can't even comply - we haven't the resources.
Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates seem even more rabidly environmental than the Governor. The Gov. has some stands that are closer to the Conservative - worker's comp reform, holding the line on taxes, and I will likely vote for him. I just wish he understood what his environmental policies were doing to rural California and the harm to the people and their small communities that he is causing through them.
I'm waiting for the day he reaches out to Republicans (for a change).
"FO, since you won't acknowledge your sex, how should we refer to you?"
===
FO will do.
Good post, Marsh; your example is compelling. I don't have any personal horror stories, but I have watched closely all of his appointments. The writing was on the wall prior to his election, having his environmental platform drafted by Robert Kennedy Jr. Since that time, he has appointed leftist after leftist. It's not about party--it's about ideology. And on these issues, Arnold is either totally ignorant or aligned with those who's ideology is contrary to fundamental Republican values (i.e. property rights).
"That's a good one!"
Thank you! That's the one! ;-)
You should know better than that by now.
It's not about ideology, it's about MONEY.
Sure thing. I post it in honor of FO. ;-P
I'll bite.
The fact is our choice is from THREE leftist Dems as Governor. Westley, Angelides, and Schwarzenegger. The main difference is that Angelides or Westley won't be able to control the Republican Party.
So which would you prefer,
A) a liberal Democrat in the Governor's office, with Republican legislators emboldened to fight every time he tries to raise the minimum wage? or
B) a liberal Democrat in the Governor's office AND as the titular head of the Republican Party in California, who Republican legislators can't or won't fight when he tries to raise the minimum wage.
Those are your only two choices. You pick.
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.