State of the Arnold

I find myself wanting to write comment after comment in Jonathan Singer's post on Arnold, so I decided to turn it into a post.  Much of what he has written is true.  If Arnold decided to challenge Boxer for the Senate in 2010, he would have a decent shot at it.  He will be just coming off two terms as governor.  If this second term goes just like 2006, then he would be very formidable.  That is a big if however.

Arnold has bit off a number of huge projects this year, rather than shoot for incremental changes.  Any and all of these have a big risk of falling completely apart.  Nearly everybody can find fault with some aspect of the proposals and they may all end up with the same fate as Hillarycare.

From the Chron:

"If he pulls any of this off -- it's pretty big, it's pretty big historically," said Raphael Sonenshein, a professor of political science at California State University Fullerton. "But the concern is, does he know what he's getting into? Or better, does he know how to get where he wants to go?"

I have never thought that Arnold knows where he wants to go.  He just wants to do stuff, big stuff and then bask in the limelight.  Generally, he is uninterested in the details and leaves it to others to sort those out.  When he decides to join the Democratic agenda great things get done like the global warming bill last year.  When he starts allying himself with the Republican base, we have disaster like 2005 with the Special Election.

Much of what he has proposed this year are mainstream Democratic concepts.  There are a few notable exceptions like the dams, and heartless cuts in assistance to poor children.  However, the notion of universal health care, the wisdom of sentencing reform and clean energy policy by punishing dirty industries are pretty heady stuff for someone with an R after his name.

Speaking of Rs.  They are pissed off at him.  They may have tolerated last year, barely, so he could win re-election but they will not be holding back this term.

"Republicans are livid -- there's unbridled outrage," said state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County), who had defended Schwarzenegger in the past to conservatives.

"He's broken his central pledge made during the campaign not to raise taxes," McClintock said. "I think there's a sense of betrayal on his promise to cut up the state's credit card. And spending has actually grown much faster under him than during the (Gray) Davis administration."

Arnold's biggest legislative ally is Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who decided to ride the gravy train for all it was worth, even though it hurt Angelides chances last year.  This is from an editorial in today's LAT:

The term turns out to be code for Sacramento's two most powerful men continuing the cheerful, co-dependent relationship they began more than a year ago. The governor parlayed their pairing into a landmark bond package, an astonishing political recovery, a cruise to reelection and a playbook for his own business-friendly, pro-growth agenda.

Meanwhile, Nuñez once on a path toward mortal political combat with the governor, finds his own agenda falling neatly into his lap, at least while a booming economy continues to make budgeting fairly simple.

The Democrats are happy to deal with Arnold to get their agenda passed.  It is the Republicans who will be the biggest stumbling block.  The governor will have to find a way to govern, as he has promised, by bringing together both parties to pass good legislation for Californians.  If he can do that and if he is interested, he would give Boxer a good run for her money, or wait to see if Feinstein retires in 2012.

On the if interested points.  Right now the CW in California is that he probably would not run for Senate.  Arnold loves attention.  He will make a big production out of the most minor of proposals.  That is not what Senators do.  He would just be 1 of 100 Senators and a junior one at that.  I cannot imagine him being happy sitting through committee hearings, or offering up amendments.  He is not a policy wonk.  He knows what his staff prepares him with, learns his lines if you will.  Then there is the family factor.  He already spends as little time as possible in Sacramento.  He generally stays at the Hyatt Monday, Tues and Wed nights.  Other than that he is at his house in Brentwood.  Being bi-costal would be a whole other ball of wax and one that I don't believe he is interested in right now.

Now that all might change in 3-4 years when he faces the prospect of being out of office and out of power.

One thing is for sure, be ready for more comments like his advocacy for escalation.  He may be finding most success by leaning right, but he still is a Republican.  His position on the war and Bush have long been a liability. He will still push for non-starters like criminalizing those who do not have insurance.  And he may, before it is all said and done, make some more dumb statements like calling legislators "girly men".  But having a Republican pushing forward mainstream Democratic issues is not a bad thing for us politically.


Poll
I think Arnold will run for Senate
in 2010
in 2012
never
who the f#(# knows its Arnold

Votes: 7
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: State of the Arnold (none / 0)

Gropinator's not gonna run for Senate. Wishful thinking on some nutjob's part.

I mean, do you think he'd tolerate a day of the pace of the Senate, of not controlling discussion, of not having a microphone? (I mean, it's safe to assume that Dems will still be in control at that point -- the only thing the country can thank Bush and his cronies for).

He's not going to move from King of California to being some random bootlicker in the Senate.


by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:12:54 PM EST

Re: State of the Arnold (none / 0)

I think you are probably are right, but I did have to pick who the f@(# knows.  If there is one thing I have learned, you never know what is going to come out of his mouth next.  If you had told me in 2005 that he was going to push for universal health care and propose maxing out on state borrowing, I would have laughed in your face.


by juls on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 02:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

dams? (none / 0)

what dams?

interestingly, historically dams are--or were--indeed a democratic agenda item; they were the meat and potatoes of the new deal pork barrel out west. eventually they became bipartisan pork barrel, and now dems are probably against them based on potential environmental damage.


mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama
by colorless green ideas on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 04:55:15 AM EST

Re: dams? (none / 0)

Correct and Arnold has now proposed spending $4.5 billion in bond money to construct two new dams.


by juls on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 11:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.